Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38299171›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024

Single isocenter dynamic conformal arcs-based radiosurgery for brain metastases: Dosimetric comparison with Cyberknife and clinical investigation.

Yoshiko Oshiro, Masashi Mizumoto, Yuichi Kato, Yukihiro Tsuchida, Koji Tsuboi, Takeji Sakae, Hideyuki Sakurai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Yoshiko OshiroDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Amakubo 1-3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan.
Masashi MizumotoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tsukuba Central Hospital, Amakubo 1-3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan.
Yuichi KatoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Amakubo 1-3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan.
Yukihiro TsuchidaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tsukuba Central Hospital, Amakubo 1-3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan.
Koji TsuboiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tsukuba Central Hospital, Amakubo 1-3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan.
Takeji SakaeDepartment of Radiation Therapy, University of Tsukuba, Amakubo 1-3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan.
Hideyuki SakuraiDepartment of Radiation Therapy, University of Tsukuba, Amakubo 1-3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8558, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the dosimetric quality of automatic multiple brain metastases planning (MBM) with that of Cyberknife (CK) based on the clinical tumor condition, such as the tumor number, size, and location. Methods: 76 treatment plans for 46 patients treated with CK were recalculated with the MBM treatment planning system. Conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), lesion underdosage volume factor (LUF), healthy tissue overdose volume factor (HTOF), geometric conformity index (g) and mean dose to normal organs were compared between CK and MBM for tumor number, size, shape and distance from the brainstem or chiasm. Results: The results showed that the mean brain dose was significantly smaller in MBM than CK. CI did not differ between MBM and CK; however, HI was significantly more ideal in CK (p = 0.000), and GI was significantly smaller in MBM (P = 0.000). LUF was larger in CK (p = 0.000) and HTOF and g was larger in MBM (p = 0.003, and 0.012). For single metastases, CK had significantly better HTOF (p = 0.000) and g (p = 0.002), but there were no differences for multiple tumors. Brain dose in MBM was significantly lower and CI was higher for tumors < 30 mm (p = 0.000 and 0.000), whereas HTOF and g for tumors < 10 mm were significantly smaller in CK (p = 0.041 and p = 0.016). Among oval tumors, brain dose, GI and LUF were smaller in MBM, but HTOF and g were smaller in CK. There were no particular trends for tumors close to the brainstem, but HTOF tended to be smaller in CK (0.03 vs. 0.29, p = 0.068) for tumors inside the brainstem. Conclusions: MBM can reduce the brain dose while achieving a dose distribution quality equivalent to that with CK.

Indexed as

Brain metastasisCyberknifeDosimetric studySingle Isocenter Dynamic Conformal ArcsStereotactic radiosurgery (SRS)

Identifiers

PMID38299171
PMCPMC10827586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.