ArticleJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT2022
Assessment of the dosimetric impact of intra-fraction motion during frameless treatment delivery on GammaKnife® Icon™.
Article in Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of patient motion on the dosimetric quality of treatment plans for metastatic patients undergoing frameless GammaKnife Methods: Motion was retrospectively simulated by shifting the stereotactic co-ordinates of shots in treatment plans using three motion models. Dosimetric quality indicators of original and shifted plans were compared. Influence of target location and size was determined. Results: Motion models showed median (p-value) absolute changes in target coverage of up to -0.133% (<0.0001), -0.267% (<0.0001) and -0.667% (<0.0001) for HDMM tolerances of 1mm, 1.5mm and 3mm. The greatest median (p-value) absolute changes in Paddick Conformity Index (PCI) and Gradient Index (GI) were -0.008 (0.0032) and 0.017 (0.6893). A reduction in target size correlated weakly with greater changes in target coverage for all models and HDMM tolerances (r Conclusion: HDMM tolerances up to and including 3mm all resulted in negligible changes in PCI and GI. Target coverage exhibited greater sensitivity to motion, but only at 3mm was the target coverage reduced below local planning aims. Our HDMM tolerance could therefore potentially be increased to 1.5mm, with likely benefits to treatment delivery efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36860999PMC9970743What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.