ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
A multi-institutional trial evaluating the use of an integrated quality assurance phantom for frameless single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery.
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 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.
- Worldwide research on 3D printing for cancer: a dual-method analysis of bibliometrics and stratified focused thematic.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Review
- Clinical implementation of a multifaceted quality assurance phantom for high-precision radiation therapy: an institutional experience.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence and optical image recognition techniques used in OneIso, an off-axis Winston-Lutz quality assurance phantom.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brain radiosurgery treatments require multiple quality-assurance (QA) procedures to ensure accurate and precise treatment delivery of ablative doses. As single-isocenter multitarget radiosurgery treatments become more popular for treating patients with multiple brain metastases, quantifying off-axis accuracy of linear accelerators is crucial. In this study, we developed a novel brain radiosurgery integrated phantom and validated this phantom at multiple institutions to enable radiosurgery QA with a single phantom to facilitate implementation of a frameless single-isocenter, multitarget radiosurgery program. The phantom combines multiple independent verification system tests including the Winston-Lutz test, off-axis accuracy evaluation (i.e., off-axis Winston-Lutz), as well as dosimetric measurements utilizing both point dose and film measurement. Methods and materials: A novel 3D-printed phantom, coined Results: Dose verification performed using the OneIso phantom across the different centers were all within on average 3% agreement, for both film and point-dose measurements. OneIso identified a reduction in spatial accuracy further away from isocenter for all eight radiosurgery machines. Differences increased as distance from isocenter increased, exceeding recommended radiosurgery accuracy tolerances (<1mm) at different distances for each machine (2-7cm), indicating that the tolerance is machine-dependent. Conclusion: OneIso provides a streamlined, single-setup workflow for single-isocenter multitarget frameless linac-based radiosurgery QA that can be easily translated to multiple institutions. Additionally, quantifying off-axis spatial discrepancies allows for determination of the maximum distance between targets and iso that meet single-isocenter multitarget radiosurgery program recommendations.
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.