ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
A mini review of plan quality and secondary cancer risk in CyberKnife M6 radiosurgery for benign intracranial tumors.
Review 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With advancements in medical technology, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become an essential option for treating benign intracranial tumors. Due to its minimal side effects and high local control rate, SRS is widely applied. This paper evaluates the plan quality and secondary cancer risk (SCR) in patients with benign intracranial tumors treated with the CyberKnife M6 system. The CyberKnife M6 robotic radiosurgery system features both multileaf collimator (MLC) and IRIS variable aperture collimator systems, providing different treatment options. The study included 15 patients treated with the CyberKnife M6 system, examining the differences in plan quality and SCR between MLC and IRIS systems. Results showed that MLC and IRIS plans had equal PTV (planning target volume) coverage (98.57% vs. 98.75%). However, MLC plans demonstrated better dose falloff and conformity index (CI: 1.81 ± 0.26 vs. 1.92 ± 0.27, P = 0.025). SCR assessment indicated that MLC plans had lower cancer risk estimates, with IRIS plans having average LAR (lifetime attributable risk) and EAR (excess absolute risk) values approximately 25% higher for cancer induction and 15% higher for sarcoma induction compared to MLC plans. The study showed that increasing tumor volume increases SCR probability, but there was no significant difference between different plans in PTV and brainstem analyses.
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.