Medizinische Universität Graz - Research portal

Go directly to the nagivation.
Go directly to the content.

Navigation/Search

Selected Publication:

SHR Neuro Cancer Cardio Lipid Metab Microb

Thomann, B; Fechter, T; Fischer, J; Runz, A; Roers, J; Ludwig, U; Grehn, M; Grohmann, M; Ziemann, C; Judge, M; Baus, W; Grahle, M; Walke, M; Bathen, B; Köhn, J; Käthner, P; Shariff, M; Matthis, R; Fleckenstein, J; Großmann, S; Streller, T; Howitz, S; Priegnitz, M; Weigel, R; Winkler, P; Blanck, O; Schmitt, D; Beck, J; Machein, M; Pappas, E; Popp, I; Reiner, M; Karger, CP; Moustakis, C; Bock, M; Grosu, AL; Baltas, D.
Multicenter multiplatform pattern-of-practice analysis of single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery.
Strahlenther Onkol. 2025; Doi: 10.1007/s00066-025-02424-w
Web of Science PubMed FullText FullText_MUG

Co-authors Med Uni Graz: Winkler Peter
Altmetrics:
Dimensions Citations:
Plum Analytics:
Scite (citation analytics):
Abstract:: PURPOSE: Single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery (SIMT SRS) offers enhanced clinical efficiency for treating multiple brain metastases. However, it introduces additional uncertainties, such as off-center dose and beam profile inaccuracies, as well as quality assurance (QA) challenges, complicating its implementation. This study aims to evaluate different SIMT SRS approaches. METHODS: We collected and analyzed SIMT SRS protocol and infrastructure parameters from 23 radiotherapy centers across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, encompassing immobilization systems, computed tomography (CT) protocols, linear accelerators, treatment planning systems, beam configurations, imaging techniques, and QA practices. Consensus, deviations, and compliance with current guidelines were assessed. Subsequent studies will include on-site measurements, evaluation of treatment plan quality and delivery accuracy, and correlation of these findings with the analyzed protocols to identify potential links between protocol parameters and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There is consensus (at least 80% agreement) for a CT slice thickness of ≤ 1 mm, the need for six-degree-of-freedom patient setup correction, and noncoplanar treatment. There is notable variability for intrafraction imaging (used by 70%), minimum accepted planning target volume diameter (ranging from 2-10 mm), SRS QA, and general plan parameters, such as photon energy and number of treatment fields. There is also high variability in employed linear accelerator models and treatment planning systems. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight a lack of standardization in SIMT SRS practices. Combined with future measurements correlating protocols to treatment quality, our study will provide a foundation for recommendations to support the safe and standardized implementation of SIMT SRS.
Find related publications in this database (Keywords): SIMT SRS; Brain metastases; Anthropomorphic phantom; Ring trial; End-to-end test