ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Multicenter evaluation of planning quality in intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2026. 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 intercomparison for stereotactic radiotherapy of multiple brain metastases.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is a standard approach for treating multiple brain metastases. However, variation in planning practices may impact treatment quality. This study assessed planning consistency and dose-volume-based outcomes across radiation oncology centers. Materials and methods: A Computed Tomography (CT) scan of an anthropomorphic phantom with structure set was distributed to participating centers. Each center created SRT plans as for a clinical case. Dose distributions were evaluated based on Planning Target Volume (PTV) coverage (V Results: Twenty-four centers, using 30 treatment units, submitted plans. The V Conclusion: This interinstitutional comparison demonstrated high plan quality and adherence to critical organ constraints, despite variability in planning strategies. These findings support nationwide planning and quality assurance standards to ensure consistently high-quality SRT.
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.