ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Evaluation of the accuracy and clinical practicality of a calculation system for patient positional displacement in carbon ion radiotherapy at five sites.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Inter-fractional Anatomical Changes on Dose Distributions in Passive Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Vertical and Horizontal Fields.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- MRI response of obturator internus muscle to carbon-ion dose in prostate cancer treatment.Journal of radiation research · 2019Article
- Review
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe developed a system for calculating patient positional displacement between digital radiography images (DRs) and digitally reconstructed radiography images (DRRs) to reduce patient radiation exposure, minimize individual differences between radiological technologists in patient positioning, and decrease positioning time. The accuracy of this system at five sites was evaluated with clinical data from cancer patients. The dependence of calculation accuracy on the size of the region of interest (ROI) and initial position was evaluated for clinical use.
methodsFor a preliminary verification, treatment planning and positioning data from eight setup patterns using a head and neck phantom were evaluated. Following this, data from 50 patients with prostate, lung, head and neck, liver, or pancreatic cancer (n = 10 each) were evaluated. Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the results calculated by our system and the reference positions were assessed. The reference positions were manually determined by two radiological technologists to best-matching positions with orthogonal DRs and DRRs in six axial directions. The ROI size dependence was evaluated by comparing RMSEs for three different ROI sizes. Additionally, dependence on initial position parameters was evaluated by comparing RMSEs for four position patterns.
resultsFor the phantom study, the average (± standard deviation) translation error was 0.17 ± 0.05, rotation error was 0.17 ± 0.07, and ΔD was 0.14 ± 0.05. Using the optimal ROI size for each patient site, all cases of prostate, lung, and head and neck cancer with initial position parameters of 10 mm or under were acceptable in our tolerance. However, only four liver cancer cases and three pancreatic cancer cases were acceptable, because of low-reproducibility regions in the ROIs.
conclusionOur system has clinical practicality for prostate, lung, and head and neck cancer cases. Additionally, our findings suggest ROI size dependence in some cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.