ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Comparison of two optimization algorithms (VOLO
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors: A comparative analysis of dose distributions among VMAT, Helical TomoTherapy, CyberKnife, Gamma Knife, and ZAP-X.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric comparison of HyperArc and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans in treating single and multiple brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Comparison of two optimization algorithms (VOLOJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
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
introductionTwo optimization algorithms VOLO™ and sequential optimization algorithm (SEQU) are compared in the Precision® treatment planning system from Accuray® for stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment plans. The aim is to compare the two algorithms to assess if VOLO™ is better of SEQU in certain treatment site. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty clinical treatment cases were compared. Entities include Acoustic neuroma (AN), lung metastases, and liver metastases. In each entity, 10 SEQU and 10 VOLO™ treatment plans were optimized. The Ray-Tracing calculation algorithm was used for all treatment plans and the treatments were planned exclusively with fixed cones (5-50 mm). The number of nodes, beams, total MU, and treatment time were compared. Conformity index (CI), new conformity index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), and target coverage were examined for agreement. D
resultsAN treatment plans showed significant differences for the number of nodes, beams, total MU, treatment time, D98%, D100% for the target volume, and the doses for all organs at risk. VOLO™ achieved better results on average. Total MU, treatment time, coverage, and D98% are significantly better for VOLO™ for lung metastases. For liver metastases, a significant reduction in number of nodes, total MU, and treatment time was observed for VOLO™ plans. The mean target coverage increased slightly with VOLO™, while the mean CI deteriorated slightly. The averages of D
conclusionThe results of the present study indicate that VOLO™ should be used in place of SEQU as a standard for AN cases moving forward. Despite the lack of significance in the lung and liver cases, VOLO™ optimization is recommended because OAR sparing was similar, but coverage, D
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.