ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2026
Automated treatment planning for brain and spinal metastases.
Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Automation improves workflow efficiency in treatment planning, especially for urgent spinal and cerebral cases. This study develops an automated planning approach for brain and spinal metastases using the Eclipse Scripting API. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 82 patients with spinal metastases and 93 with brain metastases. For spinal metastases, three beam arrangements were tested. For whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), the algorithm optimized gantry angles by identifying the largest intersection of the eyes' projections in the beam's eye view (BEV), within specified angular intervals. To reduce radiation exposure to the lenses, the algorithm automatically set the fluence to zero within the BEV lens contours, applying a 3 mm margin. Dosimetric analysis assessed dose constraints, and the time required for plan generation was recorded. Results: The median planning target volume (PTV) V99 parameter for WBRT was 97.6%, while for spinal vertebrae irradiation, it ranged from 95.9% to 98.8%. Regarding the clinical target volume (CTV), the median V99 parameter for WBRT was 99.1%, and for spinal vertebrae, it was 100%. The maximum point doses for these sites were recorded at 106.2% and 106.3%, respectively. WBRT plan generation required an average of 8 minutes ± 2 minutes and 10 seconds, whereas for spinal vertebrae irradiation, it ranged from 5 minutes and 45 seconds ± 1 minute and 43 seconds to 6 minutes and 10 seconds ± 1 minute and 45 seconds. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the developed algorithms for treatment planning can efficiently generate high-quality treatment plans for both sites within a short timeframe.
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.