↓ Skip to main content

Heterogeneity correction for intensity-modulated frameless SRS in pituitary and cavernous sinus tumors: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Heterogeneity correction for intensity-modulated frameless SRS in pituitary and cavernous sinus tumors: a retrospective study
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0500-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa B. E. Shields, Cindy Bond, Aaron Odom, David A. Sun, Aaron C. Spalding

Abstract

Frameless immobilization allows for planning and quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiosurgery (IM-SRS) plans. We tested the hypothesis that IM-SRS planning with uniform tissue density corrections results in dose inaccuracy compared to heterogeneity-corrected algorithms. Fifteen patients with tumors of the pituitary or cavernous sinus underwent frameless IM-SRS. Treatment planning CT and MRI scans were obtained and fused to delineate the tumor, optic nerves, chiasm, and brainstem. The plan was developed with static gantry IM-SRS fields using a pencil beam (PB), analytical anisotropic (AAA), and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms. We evaluated measures of target coverage as well as doses to organs at risk (OAR) for each algorithm. We compared the results of each algorithm in the cases where PTV overlapped OAR (n = 10) to cases without overlapping OAR with PTV (n = 5). Utilizing film dosimetry, we measured the dose distribution for each algorithm through a uniform density target to a rando phantom with non-uniform density of air, tissue, and bone. There was no difference in target coverage measured by DMaxPTV, DMinPTV, D95%PTV, or the isodose surface (IDS) covering 95 % of the PTV regardless of algorithm. However, there were differences in dose to OAR. PB predicted higher (p < 0.05) Dmax for the brainstem, chiasm, right optic nerve, and left optic nerve. In cases of PTV overlapping an optic nerve (n = 7), PB was unable to limit dose to 8Gy while achieving PTV coverage (PB 855 cGy vs. AAA 769 cGy, p = 0.05 vs. AXB 658 cGy, p = 0.03). Within the rando phantom, the PB and AAA algorithms over-estimated the dose delivered in the bone-tissue-air interface of the sinus (+17 %), while the AXB algorithm closely predicted the actual dose delivered through the inhomogeneous tissue (+/- 1 % max, p < 0.05). Patients undergoing frameless SRS benefit from heterogeneity corrected dose plans when the lesion lies in areas of widely varying tissue density and near critical normal structures such as the skull base. Film dosimetry confirms that the AXB dose calculation algorithm more accurately predicts actual dose delivered though tissues of varying densities than PB or AAA dose calculation algorithms.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 29%
Student > Master 4 19%
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Physics and Astronomy 5 24%
Psychology 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 19%

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 06 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,427,440
of 11,467,908 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#417
of 1,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,296
of 239,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#26
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,467,908 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,214 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
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 239,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 52% of its contemporaries.