ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple small brain metastases using gamma knife versus single-isocenter VMAT: Normal brain dose based on lesion number and size.
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.
- Article
- Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple small brain metastases using gamma knife versus single-isocenter VMAT: Normal brain dose based on lesion number and size.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
purposeThe study evaluates rapid linear accelerator (Linac) single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with Hyperarc for large target numbers. We compared to Gamma Knife (GK), which suffers from long treatment times and investigated causes of differences.
methodsLinac SRS and GK treatment plans for patients receiving 18 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) were evaluated for mean brain dose and volume of brain receiving 12 Gy or more (V12 Gy) as toxicity correlates. Further investigations included patient-based and simulations of 1-33 brain metastases to compare the ability of Linac SRS and GK to separate adjacent and distant lesions.
resultsFor three patients (33, 33, and 18 metastases), GK reduced mean brain dose (2.89 Gy, 2.38 Gy, 2.79 Gy) compared to 2.5 mm microMLCs (4.36 Gy, 4.75 Gy, 4.26 Gy, p = 0.027) and 5 mm MLCs (4.71 Gy, 5.22 Gy, 4.60 Gy, p = 0.024). GK also improved V12 Gy (13.29 cc, 11.62 cc, 33.79 cc) compared to microMLC (25.31 cc, 30.91 cc, 54.71 cc, p = 0.019) and MLC (31.69 cc, 33.68 cc, 54.71 cc). This must be balanced with GK treatment times (5-11 h). GK achieved 50% prescription line separation at smaller distances (1.8-7.6 mm) than microMLC (7.7-10.2 mm) or MLC (8.8-12.2 mm) for 0.5-1.0 cm targets (4-8 mm collimator single shot). For 1.5 cm targets (16 mm shot) results were mixed (GK 5.4-17 mm, microMLC 9.5-11.2 mm, MLC 9.5-11.3 mm). A 7.7 cm simulation cube was then incrementally filled with 0.5 cm or 1.0 cm equidistant targets. GK plan mean brain dose increased 0.04 Gy/target (1.08 Gy mean/27 targets) compared to 0.14 Gy/target for microMLC (3.78 Gy mean/27 targets) for 0.5 cm targets, with differences diminishing for 1.0 cm targets (GK 0.15 Gy/target, microMLC 0.17 Gy/target).
conclusionsFor numerous small metastases GK improves dosimetry but has exceedingly long treatment times. GK improves dose separation for adjacent lesions < 1.0 cm and conformity for small (∼0.5 cm) targets. GK and Linac differences are small for individual targets but compound over many targets. V12 Gy limits in the NCIC CE.7 trial protocol mandate dose modifications for Linac SRS but not GK.
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.