ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Automatic single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization via planning system scripting.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiation treatments delivered on C-arm linear accelerators are increasingly common due to practical advantages in both accessibility and speed compared to multiple isocenter treatments. Optimization of high-quality treatment plans can be a time-consuming process requiring substantial manual effort. In our institution, the planning workflow for these treatments was entirely manual and involved the generation of optimization structures and repeated recalculation and input of optimization objectives during the iterative optimization process. Although commercial automated planning solutions are available, their implementation may impose operational constraints, including reliance on specific immobilization and image/surface guidance hardware, motivating the development of an immobilization-independent automation tool for cranial stereotactic treatment plan optimization. PURPOSE: To develop and implement a treatment planning optimization tool for multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatments in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, to reduce manual planner input and planning time while improving plan quality.
methodsA software tool was written using the Varian Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface to automatically generate target-specific ring structures and facilitate the iterative process of plan generation. Twenty cases were retrospectively re-planned with this tool and compared with the corresponding clinical plans to evaluate plan quality using qualitative and quantitative metrics of conformality and complexity. Automated plans were verified using portal dosimetry to ensure clinical deliverability. For ten cases, a timing study was performed to compare optimization time between the software tool and manual re-optimization.
resultsThe automatic optimization tool produced plans with similar modulation and complexity, but consistently lower dosimetric falloff metrics (R DISCUSSION: The automated planning tool produced clinically acceptable, deliverable plans with better dose falloff compared to the previous manual planning approach. The tool is estimated to save an average of 15 min of optimization time per plan.
conclusionsA treatment planning optimization tool has been developed that provides improvement in both dosimetric plan quality and treatment planning efficiency for single-isocenter multiple-target cranial stereotactic treatments.
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.