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.
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.
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
- Stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors: A comparative analysis of dose distributions among VMAT, Helical TomoTherapy, CyberKnife, Gamma Knife, and ZAP-X.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.