ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Dosimetric and Geometric Analysis for MLC Based and Iris Based Treatment Plans: A Retrospective Study for Intracranial Tumors with Cyberknife Device.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeIn our institute, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were performed by Cyberknife-S7 (CK-S7) which provided the selection of different collimators. This study aimed to compare critical plan qualities including conformality, high-dose area, dose fallout, and treatment efficiency between InCise™ multileaf collimator (MLC) based and Iris™ variable aperture collimators (Iris) based treatment plans.MethodsTwenty-five patients with intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7 were retrospectively analyzed. The Precision 3.3.0.0 with VOLO™ optimizer and GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm was used for treatment planning. The new conformality index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), high-dose ratio (HDR) and distribution inside plan target volume (PTV), dose gradient distance (DGD) outside PTV, organs at risk (OARs) sparing, and treatment efficiency were compared between MLC based and Iris based plans.ResultsMLC plan achieved higher nCI, higher HDRs from 135% prescription dose (PD) to 110%PD and trended to form more centralized and gathered high-dose distribution inside PTV, while no statistical difference was found in HI. Iris possessed better dose-engraving ability around the target boundary especially when it close to OARs with strict dose constraints. MLC plan showed shorter DGD from 90%PD to 20%PD. MLC plan achieved less MUs (-67.14%), less nodes (-41.5%), less beams (-74.06%) and shorter treatment time (-51.64%). There were positive correlations between the effective radius of PTV (rPTV) and DGD from 90%PD to 10%PD both in MLC and Iris plans.ConclusionsMLC plan achieved comparable conformality, higher HDRs, more gathered high-dose distribution, faster dose fallout and more efficient treatment which proved it an excellent SRS/SRT choice for intracranial tumors treated with CK-S7. MLC might take an important advantage for the uncompliant and painful patients. However, Iris showed a better dose-engraving ability, it might be taken into consideration especially when the tumor was close to OARs with strict dose constraints.
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.