ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Producing high quality cranial SRS plans with 4Pi planning technique in a commercial clinical solution.
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.
- Automatic single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization via planning system scripting.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Producing high quality cranial SRS plans with 4Pi planning technique in a commercial clinical solution.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
purposeTo generate high-quality stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans for single cranial lesions using 4Pi planning technique and compare these to our clinical "status quo" plans.
methodsEighteen vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients previously planned with Varian Eclipse RapidArc and treated on a Varian TrueBeam using 6FFF MV photon beams were randomly selected. This cohort was replanned in Brainlab Elements Cranial SRS using an automatic 4Pi trajectory optimization technique ("Elements 4Pi"). "Elements ArcMatch" plans were also created, which utilized the identical arc geometry as the clinical plans in Eclipse, that is, used identical table angles, gantry start and stop angles, and collimator angles to isolate the inherent differences between the two treatment planning systems. SRS plan evaluation metrics included the Inverse Paddick conformity index (IPCI), gradient index (GI), max doses to the brainstem and ipsilateral cochlea, and number of monitor units (MUs). Pairwise comparisons between Eclipse and Elements 4Pi plans were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. For three-way comparisons with Elements-ArcMatch plans, the difference in distribution of SRS metrics was assessed first based on Friedman's test, followed by pairwise comparison if the findings from Friedman's test met statistical significance. A two-sided p-value of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
resultsWhile both Elements 4Pi and Elements ArcMatch plans had significantly lower GI, MU, and max doses to the brainstem and ipsilateral cochlea compared to Eclipse plans (p-values < 0.05), Elements 4Pi also had significantly lower IPCI values.
conclusionThe automation in Brainlab Elements Cranial SRS outperformed manual expert planning and produced collision-free and clinically deliverable plans for single targets with significantly better dose conformality, dose gradient, and lower dose to normal organs while using lower MUs compared to clinically delivered Eclipse plans.
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.