ArticleJournal of medical physics
Computed Tomography Simulation for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery: Impact on Target Coverage.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of using a traditional computed tomography (CT) simulation scan in the Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon™ workflow for stereotactic radiosurgery. We compared two workflows, one involving a traditional CT simulation co-registered with the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) (MRI-CT-CBCT) and another without the CT scan, co-registering the MRI directly with CBCT (MRI-CBCT). The cohort included 50 frame-based (54 targets) and 55 frameless (124 targets) patients treated between August 2020 and December 2022. Target coverage was assessed by the percentage of each target covered by the prescription isodose line. The mean coverage differences for the frame-based and frameless cohorts were -1.20% ± 1.43% and -1.06% ± 1.51%, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals of -1.59, -0.81 and -1.32, -0.79. The MRI-CBCT workflow was deemed noninferior to the MRI-CT-CBCT workflow. Our data indicate that both workflows yield similar results, suggesting that a traditional CT simulation scan is unnecessary.
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.