ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Comparative analysis of plan quality and delivery efficiency: ZAP-X vs. CyberKnife for brain metastases treatment.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of plan quality between two SRS systems for stereotactic irradiation in treating Vestibular Schwannoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Gyroscopic Radiosurgery in a Case of Juxtapapillary Choroidal Melanoma: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose/Objectives: ZAP-X, a novel and dedicated radiosurgery (SRS) system, has recently emerged, while CyberKnife has solidified its position as a versatile solution for SRS and stereotactic body radiation therapy over the past two decades. This study aims to compare the dosimetric performance and delivery efficiency of ZAP-X and CyberKnife in treating brain metastases of varying target sizes, employing circular collimation. Methods and materials: Twenty-three patients, encompassing a total of 47 brain metastases, were included in the creation of comparative plans of ZAP-X and CyberKnife for analysis. The comparative plans were generated to achieve identical prescription doses for the targets, while adhering to the same dose constraints for organs at risk (OAR). The prescription isodose percentage was optimized within the range of 97-100% for each plan to ensure effective target-volume coverage. To assess plan quality, indices such as conformity, homogeneity, and gradient (CI, HI, and GI) were computed, along with the reporting of total brain volumes receiving 12Gy and 10Gy. Estimated treatment time and monitor units (MUs) were compared between the two modalities in evaluating delivery efficiency. Results: Overall, CyberKnife achieved better CI and HI, while ZAP-X exhibited better GI and a smaller irradiated volume for the normal brain. The superiority of CyberKnife's plan conformity was more pronounced for target size less than 1 cc and greater than 10 cc. Conversely, the advantage of ZAP-X's plan dose gradient was more notable for target sizes under 10 cc. The homogeneity of ZAP-X plans, employing multiple isocenters, displayed a strong correlation with the target's shape and the planner's experience in placing isocenters. Generally, the estimated treatment time was similar between the two modalities, and the delivery efficiency was significantly impacted by the chosen collimation sizes for both modalities. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that, within the range of target sizes within the patient cohort, plans generated by ZAP-X and CyberKnife exhibit comparable plan quality and delivery efficiency. At present, with the current platform of the two modalities, CyberKnife outperforms ZAP-X in terms of conformity and homogeneity, while ZAP-X tends to produce plans with a more rapid dose falloff.
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.