ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026
Effects of intrafractional motion on targeting accuracy in frameless single-isocenter multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluates the impact of intrafractional motion on targeting accuracy in frameless single-isocenter multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery (SIMT) for brain metastases and examines the necessity of intrafractional six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) image-guided corrections.
methodsA total of 120 SIMT-SRS treatments and 294 couch kicks were analyzed using positioning data from an intrafractional stereoscopic X‑ray image-guidance system. Deviations exceeding clinical tolerance (0.5 mm/0.5°) triggered repositioning. Initial and final 6DoF shifts were compared. The dosimetric impact of simulated setup errors (0.5-1 mm, 0.5°-1°) was evaluated in 15 selected SIMT-SRS cases comprising 90 metastases. Target coverage and plan quality were assessed using D98%, conformity index, and gradient index. A multivariable regression model was applied to assess the influence of target volume and distance to the isocenter on target coverage.
resultsIntrafractional motion exceeded tolerance thresholds after 66% of couch kicks, necessitating corrections. Translational and rotational errors decreased from 0.71 ± 0.38 mm and 0.58 ± 0.34° before correction to 0.33 ± 0.19 mm and 0.38 ± 0.18° after correction. Simulated setup errors progressively impaired target coverage and conformity. For 0.5 mm/0.5° errors, D98% decreased by 7.6% ± 2.5%, conformity index declined by 9.5% ± 4.9%, and gradient index increased by 1.2% ± 2.3%. At 1 mm/1°, D98% decreased by 17.3% ± 4.8%, conformity index declined by 26.6% ± 9.2%, and gradient index increased by 1.1% ± 2.6%. Smaller targets (≤ 0.4 cm
conclusionIntrafractional motion in frameless SIMT-SRS frequently exceeds clinical tolerance thresholds after couch kicks and can compromise both target coverage and conformity. Even small setup errors degrade plan quality, particularly for small lesions, whereas changes in dose gradient are comparatively modest within the investigated range. Intrafractional 6DoF corrections are therefore essential to reduce geometric deviations and preserve treatment quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42397419What 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.