ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Dual optimization in single-isocenter radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: a dosimetric planning study.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated a dual-optimization strategy for single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery (SIMT-SRS) in patients with multiple brain metastases, combining target-anchored isocenter placement with individualized dose prescription for each planning target volume (PTV). Methods: Three volumetric modulated arc therapy-based SIMT-SRS planning techniques were compared in 22 patients harboring 5-10 brain metastases: geometric center isocenter with composite dose prescription (GCI-Comp), target-anchored isocenter with composite dose prescription (TAI-Comp), and target-anchored isocenter with individual dose prescription (TAI-Ind). Dosimetric parameters for PTVs and organs at risk (OARs) were extracted and compared using the Friedman test followed by Bonferroni-corrected Results: All three techniques achieved equivalent target coverage (V95% > 99%, Conclusions: The TAI-Ind dual-optimization strategy provided greater intratumoral dose escalation and more favorable OARs sparing compared with the composite-prescription techniques, without compromising target coverage. This approach represents a promising strategy for SIMT-SRS planning in patients with multiple brain metastases, warranting further clinical validation.
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.