ArticleBJR open2024
A multi-centre stereotactic radiosurgery planning study of multiple brain metastases using isocentric linear accelerators with 5 and 2.5 mm width multi-leaf collimators, CyberKnife and Gamma Knife.
Article in BJR open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study compared plans of high definition (HD), 2.5 mm width multi-leaf collimator (MLC), to standard, 5 mm width, isocentric linear accelerator (linacs), CyberKnife (CK), and Gamma Knife (GK) for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) techniques on multiple brain metastases. Methods: Eleven patients undergoing SRS for multiple brain metastases were chosen. Targets and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated and optimized SRS plans were generated and compared. Results: The linacs delivered similar conformity index (CI) values, but the gradient index (GI) for HD MLCs was significantly lower ( Conclusions: Comparing linacs for SRS, the preferred choice is HD MLCs. Similar results were achieved with the HD MLC linac, CK, or GK, with each delivering significant improvements in different aspects of plan quality. Advances in knowledge: This article is the first to compare HD and standard width MLC linac plans using a combination of single isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy and multi-isocentric dynamic conformal arc plans as required, which is a more clinically relevant assessment. Furthermore, it compares these plans with CK and GK, assessing the relative merits of each technique.
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.