ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Dosimetric comparison of M6 CyberKnife plans optimized with Precision and RayStation 12A treatment planning systems.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Dosimetric comparison of M6 CyberKnife plans optimized with Precision and RayStation 12A treatment planning systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTreatment planning for CyberKnife (CK) (Accuray, USA) can be performed with Precision (Accuray, USA) or RayStation (RS) (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) treatment planning systems (TPS). RaySearch recently released a new version of the CK module in RS 12A. The objective of the study was to compare plan quality between RS 12A and Precision.
methodsFifty nine plans were optimized with both TPS and compared; 39 were for brain metastases and 20 were for vertebral metastases. To avoid bias in plan comparison, Precision plans were recomputed in RS with the dose algorithm and beam model of RS, and then compared to RS plans. The comparison was divided into 3 parts in order to reflect the potential of RS and the differences with Precision, in terms of technical aspects of delivery efficiency and dose distribution. We compared the dose to the target and to the organs at risk (OAR), the conformity index (CI), the gradient, as well as the number of monitor units (MU), and the number of beams and nodes. Finally, a global plan quality index (PQI) was calculated.
resultsRS plans showed an equivalent target coverage for brain metastases but worse for vertebrae. OAR sparing was improved in RS but with a lower CI compared to Precision. Using an appropriate planning methodology in RS, plans with comparable quality to Precision could be obtained, but at the cost of a longer optimization time. The PQI obtained with RS was better than Precision, except for some brain cases.
conclusionRS is an adequate alternative for CK planning as it is possible to obtain plan quality comparable to Precision. However, the optimization time is longer compared to Precision and more attention must be paid to the choice of the initial conditions in terms of the number of beams and nodes.
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.