Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40040470›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025

Stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors: A comparative analysis of dose distributions among VMAT, Helical TomoTherapy, CyberKnife, Gamma Knife, and ZAP-X.

Toshihiro Suzuki, Masahide Saito, Ryutaro Nomura, Hikaru Nemoto, Naoto Yanagisawa, Ryuma Sawada, Zennosuke Mochizuki, Naoki Sano, Hiroshi Onishi, Hiroshi Takahashi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Toshihiro SuzukiCyberKnife Center, Kasugai General Rehabilitation Hospital, Yamanashi, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0414-5218
Masahide SaitoDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8636-4045
Ryutaro NomuraDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kamiyacho Neurosurgical Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Hikaru NemotoDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6540-2906
Naoto YanagisawaDivision of Radiation Oncology, Aizawa Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aizawa Hospital, Nagano, Japan.
Ryuma SawadaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kamiyacho Neurosurgical Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Zennosuke MochizukiCyberKnife Center, Kasugai General Rehabilitation Hospital, Yamanashi, Japan.
Naoki SanoDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan.
Hiroshi OnishiDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan.
Hiroshi TakahashiCyberKnife Center, Kasugai General Rehabilitation Hospital, Yamanashi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluates various radiotherapy techniques for treating metastatic brain tumor (BT), focusing on non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (NC-VMAT), coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT), Helical TomoTherapy (HT), CyberKnife (CK), Gamma Knife (GK), and ZAP-X. CT images and structures of 12 patients who underwent CK for a single BT were utilized. Twelve treatment plans were created for each planning device. All plans adopted the approach of prescription doses to planning target volume D99.5%. They were divided into stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (prescription dose; 21-23 Gy) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) (prescription dose; 30-36.5 Gy) groups and the same parameters evaluated included Gradient Index (GI), Paddick Conformity Index (CI), and treatment time (t-time). In the SRS group, mean values of GI and CI values were: NC-VMAT (4.28, 0.60), C-VMAT (5.61, 0.44), HT (4.68, 0.42), CK (4.31, 0.61), GK (2.81, 0.82), and ZAP-X (2.99, 0.80). In the SRT group: NC-VMAT (3.27, 0.84), C-VMAT (3.81, 0.82), HT (3.76, 0.65), CK (2.98, 0.77), GK (2.61, 0.90), and ZAP-X (2.80, 0.84). There were no significant differences in the mean values of CI and GI between ZAP-X and GK in both groups (p > 0.05). NC-VMAT and C-VMAT had shorter t-time than other techniques in both groups. ZAP-X is relatively superior in CI and GI for small tumors, similar to GK, while differences with NC-VMAT and CK diminish as tumor volume increases. ZAP-X, CK, and GK have longer t-time than other treatment techniques, regardless of volume.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageCyberKnifeGamma KnifeHelical TomoTherapymetastatic brain tumorVMATZAP‐X

Identifiers

PMID40040470
PMCPMC12148775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.