Longitudinal trends in Gamma Knife radiosurgery utilization across multiple technological generations: A Single-Institution Observational Study

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Daniel El Basha, Eric Filiput, Austen Curcuru, Sven Ferguson, Sreekrishna Murty Goddu, Nels Knutson, Hugh Lee, Timothy Mitchell, Seungjong Oh, Joshua L. Dowling, Jiayi Huang, Taeho Kim
{"title":"Longitudinal trends in Gamma Knife radiosurgery utilization across multiple technological generations: A Single-Institution Observational Study","authors":"Daniel El Basha,&nbsp;Eric Filiput,&nbsp;Austen Curcuru,&nbsp;Sven Ferguson,&nbsp;Sreekrishna Murty Goddu,&nbsp;Nels Knutson,&nbsp;Hugh Lee,&nbsp;Timothy Mitchell,&nbsp;Seungjong Oh,&nbsp;Joshua L. Dowling,&nbsp;Jiayi Huang,&nbsp;Taeho Kim","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has been a foundational modality for the treatment of intracranial diseases for several decades, with successive platform generations introducing substantial technological advancements. Improvements in source configuration, patient positioning systems, imaging guidance, and immobilization techniques have expanded clinical capabilities. Despite these ongoing innovations, few long-term institutional analyses have evaluated whether GKRS utilization has remained stable, increased, or shifted with changes in disease patterns and retreatment needs over time.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has undergone multiple technological evolutions over the past two decades. This study provides a retrospective analysis of longitudinal utilization at a single institution, examining trends in case volume, disease indications, retreatment frequency, and platform era.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective analysis of Gamma Knife treatments delivered at one institution between 1998 and 2025 was performed. Annual counts of first, repeat, and total GKRS treatments were analyzed using negative binomial regression with a log link and Newey–West standard errors; platform-adjusted models accounted for the sequential relationship between calendar time and platform era. Segmented negative binomial regression of monthly counts evaluated slope changes at platform transitions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Across the study period, 6,201 unique patients received 7,267 delivered treatment courses. Median annual treatment volume was 276 procedures (range, 71–362); median age at first treatment was 60 years (IQR, 50–69), and brain metastasis was the primary indication in 2,991 patients (48.2%). Total volume increased in unadjusted modeling (count ratio [CR], 1.03; <i>p &lt;</i> 0.001), and repeat treatments showed the strongest platform-adjusted growth (CR 1.14; <i>p &lt;</i> 0.001). Metastatic disease was the dominant adjusted disease-specific trend (CR 1.08; <i>p =</i> 0.01). Repeat metastatic treatments increased more than overall repeat treatments (CR 1.15; <i>p &lt;</i> 0.001). Segmented regression showed significant growth during the baseline Model B era (annualized CR 1.16; <i>p &lt;</i> 0.001) followed by significant attenuation at the Model C transition (annualized CR 0.90; <i>p =</i> 0.01). The primary segmented model showed no significant incremental slope change at Perfexion or Icon; sensitivity analyses indicated that the estimated Icon-era association was model-dependent.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Long-term Gamma Knife utilization demonstrated sustained institutional growth, with the clearest adjusted temporal trends in metastatic disease and repeat treatment. Because calendar time and sequential platform adoption were collinear, these observational findings describe evolving utilization and practice patterns but do not establish that platform changes caused the observed trends.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"27 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13662532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70808","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has been a foundational modality for the treatment of intracranial diseases for several decades, with successive platform generations introducing substantial technological advancements. Improvements in source configuration, patient positioning systems, imaging guidance, and immobilization techniques have expanded clinical capabilities. Despite these ongoing innovations, few long-term institutional analyses have evaluated whether GKRS utilization has remained stable, increased, or shifted with changes in disease patterns and retreatment needs over time.

Purpose

Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has undergone multiple technological evolutions over the past two decades. This study provides a retrospective analysis of longitudinal utilization at a single institution, examining trends in case volume, disease indications, retreatment frequency, and platform era.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of Gamma Knife treatments delivered at one institution between 1998 and 2025 was performed. Annual counts of first, repeat, and total GKRS treatments were analyzed using negative binomial regression with a log link and Newey–West standard errors; platform-adjusted models accounted for the sequential relationship between calendar time and platform era. Segmented negative binomial regression of monthly counts evaluated slope changes at platform transitions.

Results

Across the study period, 6,201 unique patients received 7,267 delivered treatment courses. Median annual treatment volume was 276 procedures (range, 71–362); median age at first treatment was 60 years (IQR, 50–69), and brain metastasis was the primary indication in 2,991 patients (48.2%). Total volume increased in unadjusted modeling (count ratio [CR], 1.03; p < 0.001), and repeat treatments showed the strongest platform-adjusted growth (CR 1.14; p < 0.001). Metastatic disease was the dominant adjusted disease-specific trend (CR 1.08; p = 0.01). Repeat metastatic treatments increased more than overall repeat treatments (CR 1.15; p < 0.001). Segmented regression showed significant growth during the baseline Model B era (annualized CR 1.16; p < 0.001) followed by significant attenuation at the Model C transition (annualized CR 0.90; p = 0.01). The primary segmented model showed no significant incremental slope change at Perfexion or Icon; sensitivity analyses indicated that the estimated Icon-era association was model-dependent.

Conclusions

Long-term Gamma Knife utilization demonstrated sustained institutional growth, with the clearest adjusted temporal trends in metastatic disease and repeat treatment. Because calendar time and sequential platform adoption were collinear, these observational findings describe evolving utilization and practice patterns but do not establish that platform changes caused the observed trends.

多技术世代伽玛刀放射外科应用的纵向趋势:一项单机构观察研究。
背景:几十年来,伽玛刀放射外科(GKRS)一直是治疗颅内疾病的基本方式,连续几代平台引入了实质性的技术进步。源配置、患者定位系统、成像引导和固定技术的改进扩大了临床能力。尽管有这些持续的创新,但很少有长期的机构分析评估GKRS的利用是否随着疾病模式和再治疗需求的变化而保持稳定、增加或转移。目的:伽玛刀放射外科(GKRS)在过去二十年中经历了多次技术发展。本研究对单个机构的纵向用药进行了回顾性分析,考察了病例量、疾病适应症、再治疗频率和平台时代的趋势。方法:回顾性分析1998年至2025年间在一家机构进行的伽玛刀治疗。采用负二项回归分析首次、重复和总GKRS治疗的年计数,并采用对数关联和new - west标准误差;平台调整模型考虑了日历时间和平台时代之间的顺序关系。分段负二项回归每月计数评估斜坡变化在平台过渡。结果:在整个研究期间,6201名独特患者接受了7267个交付疗程。年平均治疗量为276例(范围71-362例);首次治疗的中位年龄为60岁(IQR, 50-69岁),2,991例患者(48.2%)的主要指征是脑转移。结论:长期伽玛刀使用显示出持续的机构增长,在转移性疾病和重复治疗中具有最明显的调整时间趋势。由于日历时间和顺序平台采用是共线的,这些观察结果描述了不断发展的利用率和实践模式,但并没有确定平台变化导致了观察到的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书