↓ Skip to main content

In silico assessment of the dosimetric quality of a novel, automated radiation treatment planning strategy for linac-based radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases and a comparison with robotic…

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In silico assessment of the dosimetric quality of a novel, automated radiation treatment planning strategy for linac-based radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases and a comparison with robotic methods
Published in
Radiation Oncology, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13014-018-0997-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krzysztof Slosarek, Barbara Bekman, Jacek Wendykier, Aleksandra Grządziel, Antonella Fogliata, Luca Cozzi

Abstract

To appraise the dosimetric features and the quality of the treatment plan for radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases optimized with a novel automated engine and to compare with plans optimized for robotic-based delivery. A set of 15 patients with multiple brain metastases was selected for this in silico study. The technique under investigation is the recently introduced HyperArc. For all patients, three treatment plans were computed and compared: i: a HyperArc; ii: a standard VMAT; iii) a CyberKnife. Dosimetric features were computed for the clinical target volumes as well as for the healthy brain tissue and the organs at risk. The data showed that the best dose homogeneity was achieved with the VMAT technique. HyperArc allowed to minimize the volume of brain receiving 4Gy (as well as for the mean dose and the volume receiving 12Gy, although not statistically significant). The smallest dose on 1 cm3volume for all organs at risk is for CK techniques, and the biggest for VMAT (p < 0.05). The Radiation Planning Index coefficient indicates that, there are no significant differences among the techniques investigated, suggesting an equivalence among these. At treatment planning level, the study demonstrates that the use of HyperArc technique can significantly improve the sparing of the healthy brain while maintaining a full coverage of the target volumes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Physics and Astronomy 10 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,969,772
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#920
of 2,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,106
of 333,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#25
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.