% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Thomann:302836,
author = {B. Thomann$^*$ and T. Fechter$^*$ and J. Fischer and A.
Runz$^*$ and J. Roers and U. Ludwig and M. Grehn and M.
Grohmann and C. Ziemann and M. Judge and W. Baus and M.
Grahle and M. Walke and B. Bathen and J. Köhn and P.
Käthner and M. Shariff and R. Matthis and J. Fleckenstein
and S. Großmann and T. Streller and S. Howitz and M.
Priegnitz and R. Weigel and P. Winkler and O. Blanck and D.
Schmitt and J. Beck and M. Machein and E. Pappas and I.
Popp$^*$ and M. Reiner and C. Karger$^*$ and C. Moustakis
and M. Bock and A.-L. Grosu$^*$ and D. Baltas$^*$},
title = {{M}ulticenter multiplatform pattern-of-practice analysis of
single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery.},
journal = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
volume = {201},
number = {9},
issn = {0179-7158},
address = {Heidelberg},
publisher = {Springer Medizin},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-01376},
pages = {953-962},
year = {2025},
note = {2025 Sep;201(9):953-962},
abstract = {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.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.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.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.},
keywords = {Anthropomorphic phantom (Other) / Brain metastases (Other)
/ End-to-end test (Other) / Ring trial (Other) / SIMT SRS
(Other)},
cin = {FR01 / E040},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)FR01-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40637729},
doi = {10.1007/s00066-025-02424-w},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/302836},
}