ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Dosimetric evaluation of Ethos 2.0 high-fidelity mode for single-isocenter SRS.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dosimetric evaluation of Ethos 2.0 high-fidelity mode for single-isocenter SRS.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
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluates the impact of the Ethos 2.0 high-fidelity (HF) mode on single-isocenter, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) planning workflows. By comparing different planning templates, we assess the effects of HF mode and control rings (R) on plan quality, aiming to optimize treatment for patients with brain metastases.
methodsA cohort of 45 patients with brain metastases was divided into a tuning (n = 15) and a validation set (n = 30). Four planning templates were evaluated: HFonRon, HFonRoff, HFoffRon, and HFoffRoff. Plans were generated using the Ethos Intelligent Optimization Engine (IOE v02.00.10), and all patients were prescribed 30 Gy in 5 fractions using 2 mm PTV margins. Plan quality was evaluated using target coverage (PTV V100%), normal brain dose (Brain-PTV V30Gy), Paddick conformity index (CI), and Falloff index. Plan complexity was evaluated using total MU's on a per-plan basis across the four templates.
resultsThe HFonRon template produced better quality plans, achieving significant improvements in normal tissue sparing (p < 0.0001), CI (p < 0.0001), and Falloff index (p < 0.0001) compared to other templates. All templates provided clinically acceptable target coverage. In the HFoffRoff configuration, 97.5 % of targets met the coverage criterion (V100% > 95%). The other setups achieved coverage in 99.2% (HFoffRon), 96.6% (HFonRoff), and 98.3% (HFonRon) of targets, respectively. Plan complexity decreased significantly (p < 0.0001) when enabling HF mode compared to both HF disabled templates
conclusionsHis study shows that combining Ethos 2.0's high-fidelity mode with user-defined control rings yields superior single-isocenter SRS plans compared with planning strategies that omit one or both features. This approach improves dose conformity, reduces normal tissue exposure, and decreases plan complexity through semi-automated, template-based planning. These findings suggest that HF mode can be a valuable tool in clinical practice for optimizing SRS treatments for patients with brain metastases.
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.