ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Comparative analysis of plan quality between two SRS systems for stereotactic irradiation in treating Vestibular Schwannoma.
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.
- Comparison of DVH-based machine learning and 3D convolutional neural network approaches for automated VMAT planning in head and neck cancer.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of plan quality between two SRS systems for stereotactic irradiation in treating Vestibular Schwannoma.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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare plan quality for vestibular schwannoma (VS) between CyberKnife (CK) and ZAP-X.
methodsThirty VS cases treated with CK were re-planned on CK and newly planned on ZAP-X. Both plans ensured 98% target coverage. The 30 patients were divided into two groups: 15 patients with Koos grade I and II (grade I/II group) and 15 patients with Koos grade III and IV (grade III/IV group). For patients in the grade I/II group, 12 Gy in 1 fraction was prescribed. For those in the grade III/IV group, they received the total dose of 21 Gy in three fractions. The evaluated parameters included the Gradient Index (GI), Paddick Conformity Index (CI), cochlea and brainstem doses, monitor units (MU), and beam-on time (BT).
resultsIn the results, ZAP-X achieved lower mean GI in the grade I/II group while CK did better in the grade III/IV group. The mean CI was higher for ZAP-X in both groups, with a significant difference. The mean cochlear and brainstem doses were lower with ZAP-X in the grade I/II group, with a significant difference. In contrast, no significant difference was observed in the grade III/IV group. In both groups, the mean MU was lower for CK, and the mean BT was shorter for CK.
conclusionIn radiation therapy for VS, ZAP-X can provide a treatment plan comparable to that of CK. Notably, for smaller targets, ZAP-X has the potential to achieve superior treatment planning compared to CK.
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.