Evaluation of a new secondary dose calculation software for Gamma Knife radiosurgery

Current available secondary dose calculation software for Gamma Knife radiosurgery falls short in situations where the target is shallow in depth or when the patient is positioned with a gamma angle other than 90°. In this work, we evaluate a new secondary calculation software which utilizes an innovative method to handle nonstandard gamma angles and image thresholding to render the skull for dose calculation. 800 treatment targets previously treated with our GammaKnife Icon system were imported from our treatment planning system (GammaPlan 11.0.3) and a secondary dose calculation was conducted. The agreement between the new calculations and the TPS were recorded and compared to the original secondary dose calculation agreement with the TPS using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Further comparisons using a Mann-Whitney test were made for targets treated at a 90° gamma angle against those treated with either a 70 or 110 gamma angle for both the new and commercial secondary dose calculation systems. Correlations between dose deviations from the treatment planning system against average target depth were evaluated using a Kendall\u27s Tau correlation test for both programs. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicated a significant difference in the agreement between the two secondary calculations and the TPS, with a P-value \u3c 0.0001. With respect to patients treated at nonstandard gamma angles, the new software was largely independent of patient setup, while the commercial software showed a significant dependence (P-value \u3c 0.0001). The new secondary dose calculation software showed a moderate correlation with calculation depth, while the commercial software showed a weak correlation (Tau = -.322 and Tau = -.217 respectively). Overall, the new secondary software has better agreement with the TPS than the commercially available secondary calculation software over a range of diverse treatment geometries

Filmless quality assurance of a Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon™

PURPOSE: The annual quality assurance (QA) of Leksell Gamma Knife METHODS: Annual QA tests for a LGK Icon™ system were performed using both film-based and filmless techniques. Output calibration, relative output factors (ROF), radiation profiles, sector uniformity/source counting, and verification of the unit center point (UCP) and radiation focal point (RFP) coincidence tests were performed. Radiochromic films, two ionization chambers, and a synthetic diamond detector were used for the measurements. Results were compared and verified with the treatment planning system (TPS). RESULTS: The measured dose rate of the LGK Icon was within 0.4% of the TPS value set at the time of commissioning using an ionization chamber. ROF for the 8 and 4-mm collimators were found to be 0.3% and 1.8% different from TPS values using the MicroDiamond detector and 2.6% and 1.9% different for film, respectively. Excellent agreement was found between TPS and measured dose profiles using the MicroDiamond detector which was within 1%/1 mm vs 2%/1 mm for film. Sector uniformity was found to be within 1% for all eight sectors measured using an ionization chamber. Verification of UCP and RFP coincidence using the MicroDiamond detector and pinprick film test was within 0.3 mm at isocenter for both. CONCLUSION: The annual QA of a LGK Icon was successfully performed by employing filmless techniques. Comparable results were obtained using radiochromic films. Utilizing active detectors instead of films simplifies the QA process and saves time without loss of accuracy

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care