ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Knowledge based automated planning for non-coplanar VMAT stereotactic radiosurgery in ocular malignancies.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeStereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to enucleation in the management of ocular malignancies. SRS/SRT planning is time-consuming, complex, and the plan quality depends on the experience of the treatment planner. We demonstrate the use of RapidPlan modeling in conjunction with HyperArc for the treatment of ocular diseases to improve planning efficiency, consistency, and quality. MATERIALS AND
methodsA HyperArc-based RapidPlan (HARP) model was iteratively trained on 80 patient datasets that simulated ocular malignancies. Twenty additional patient datasets were reserved for model testing and comparison with manual plans. Each testing dataset was both manually planned and replanned with the final RapidPlan model. Target volumes were defined in the HyperArc module as the GTV and PTV. The PTV was generated by a 2 mm static expansion of the GTV. 25 Gy in 1 fraction was prescribed, and all plans were normalized such that PTVD
resultsModel-based plans demonstrated similar degrees of conformality, gradient, and target coverage compared to manual planning. OAR sparing showed statistically significant improvements with model-based plans. Optic nerve Dmax (D0.03 cc) decreased to 4.56 Gy (manual: 7.18 Gy), and lens Dmax decreased to 7.64 Gy (manual: 9.36 Gy). Lacrimal gland mean dose decreased from 11.61 to 6.47 Gy. Modulation factor, monitor units, and beam-on times also all decreased. Patient-specific QA results showed improvements compared to manually generated plans. MC second check results also improved, increasing from an average of 97.81%-98.74%. Plan optimization times decreased significantly from approximately 120 min for manual planning to 15 min on average for model-based plans.
conclusionRapidPlan-generated ocular SRS plans showed either comparable performance or improvements in all plan metrics measured, compared to manual planning. Planning times were significantly reduced while maintaining or improving plan quality. Clinical implementation of this HARP model is ongoing at our clinic.
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.