Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37540084›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

The dosimetric impact of titanium implants in spinal SBRT using four commercial treatment planning algorithms.

Chieh-Wen Liu, Young-Bin Cho, Anthony Magnelli, Lilyana Angelov, Ehsan H Balagamwala, Samuel T Chao, Ping Xia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Safety and efficacy of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants in primary and metastatic spinal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chieh-Wen LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Young-Bin ChoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Anthony MagnelliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Lilyana AngelovDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Ehsan H BalagamwalaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Samuel T ChaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Ping XiaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the dosimetric impact of titanium implants in spine SBRT using four dose calculation algorithms. Twenty patients with titanium implants in the spine treated with SBRT without density override (DO) were selected. The clinical plan for each patient was created in Pinnacle and subsequently imported into Eclipse (AAA and AcurosXB) and Raystation (CC) for dose evaluation with and without DO to the titanium implant. We renormalized all plans such that 90% of the tumor volume received the prescription dose and subsequently evaluated the following dose metrics: (1) the maximum dose to 0.03 cc (Dmax), dose to 99% (D99%) and 90% (D90%) of the tumor volume; (2) Dmax and volumetric metrics of the spinal cord. For the same algorithm, plans with and without DO had similar dose distributions. Differences in Dmax, D99% and D90% of the tumor were on average <2% with slightly larger variations up to 5.58% in Dmax using AcurosXB. Dmax of the spinal cord for plans calculated with DO increased but the differences were clinically insignificant for all algorithms (mean: 0.36% ± 0.7%). Comparing to the clinical plans, the relative differences for all algorithms had an average of 1.73% (-10.36%-13.21%) for the tumor metrics and -0.93% (-9.87%-10.95%) for Dmax of the spinal cord. A few cases with small tumor and spinal cord volumes, dose differences of >10% in both D99% and Dmax of the tumor, and Dmax of the spinal cord were observed. For all algorithms, the presence of titanium implants in the spine for most patients had minimal impact on dose distributions with and without DO. For the same plan calculated with different algorithms, larger differences in volumetric metrics of >10% could be observed, impacted by dose gradient at the plan normalization volume, tumor volumes, plan complexity, and partial voxel volume interpolation.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAlgorithmsHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTitaniumTitaniumalgorithmsspinal implantsspine SBRTtreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID37540084
PMCPMC10562029
OpenAlexW4385564590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.