ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
A study on inter-planner plan quality variability using a manual planning- or Lightning dose optimizer-approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereotactic radiosurgery using a self-shielded gyroscopic radiosurgery system for meningiomas: technical aspects and dosimetric results.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Gamma knife knowledge-based planning with isocenter selection.Medical physics · 2026Article
- A Preliminary Study on Deep Learning-Based Plan Quality Prediction in Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases.Cancers · 2025Article
- A study on inter-planner plan quality variability using a manual planning- or Lightning dose optimizer-approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma KnifeJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Effects of Institutional Experience on Plan Quality in Stereotactic Radiotherapy Using HyperArc for Brain Metastases.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate inter-planner plan quality variability using a manual forward planning (MFP)- or fast inverse planning (FIP, Lightning)-approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife
methodsThirty patients who were previously treated with GK stereotactic radiosurgery or radiotherapy were selected and divided into three groups (post-operative resection cavity, intact brain metastasis, and vestibular schwannoma [10 patients per group]). Clinical plans for the 30 patients were generated by multiple planners using FIP only (1), a combination of FIP and MFP (12), and MFP only (17). Three planners (Senior, Junior, and Novice) with varying experience levels re-planned the 30 patients using MFP and FIP (two plans per patient) with planning time limit of 60 min. Statistical analysis was performed to compare plan quality metrics (Paddick conformity index, gradient index, number of shots, prescription isodose line, target coverage, beam-on-time (BOT), and organs-at-risk doses) of MFP or FIP plans among three planners and to compare plan quality metrics between each planner's MFP/FIP plans and clinical plans. Variability in FIP parameter settings (BOT, low dose, and target max dose) and in planning time among the planners was also evaluated.
resultsVariations in plan quality metrics of FIP plans among three planners were smaller than those of MFP plans for all three groups. Junior's MFP plans were the most comparable to the clinical plans, whereas Senior's and Novice's MFP plans were superior and inferior, respectively. All three planners' FIP plans were comparable or superior to the clinical plans. Differences in FIP parameter settings among the planners were observed. Planning time was shorter and variations in planning time among the planners were smaller for FIP plans in all three groups.
conclusionsThe FIP approach is less planner dependent and more time-honored than the MFP approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.