ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2018
Patient positioning in head and neck cancer : Setup variations and safety margins in helical tomotherapy.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head and neck radiotherapy on the MR linac: a multicenter planning challenge amongst MRIdian platform users.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- Head and neck radiotherapy-induced changes in dentomaxillofacial structures detected on panoramic radiographs: A systematic review.Imaging science in dentistry · 2021Article
- Accuracy of surface-guided patient setup for conventional radiotherapy of brain and nasopharynx cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- A review of Image Guided Radiation Therapy in head and neck cancer from 2009-201 - Best Practice Recommendations for RTTs in the Clinic.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Helical tomotherapy: Comparison of Hi-ART and Radixact clinical patient treatments at the Technical University of Munich.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Tomotherapy in malignant mesothelioma: a planning study to establish dose constraints.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019Article
- Development of twist-correction system for radiotherapy of head and neck cancer patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Using Image-guided Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy on Patients With Head and Neck Soft-tissue Sarcoma.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the interfractional variations of patient positioning during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with helical tomotherapy in head and neck cancer and to calculate the required safety margins (sm) for bony landmarks resulting from the necessary table adjustments. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn all, 15 patients with head and neck cancer were irradiated using the Hi-Art II tomotherapy system between April and September 2016. Before therapy sessions, patient position was frequently checked by megavolt computed tomography (MV-CT). Necessary table adjustments (ta) in the right-left (rl), superior-inferior (si) and anterior-posterior (ap) directions were recorded for four anatomical points: second, fourth and sixth cervical vertebral body (CVB), anterior nasal spine (ANS). Based upon these data sm were calculated for non-image-guided radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and image guidance limited to a shortened area (CVB 2).
resultsBased upon planning CT the actual treatment required ta from -0.05 ± 1.31 mm for CVB 2 (ap) up to 2.63 ± 2.39 mm for ANS (rl). Considering the performed ta resulting from image control (MV-CT) we detected remaining ta from -0.10 ± 1.09 mm for CVB 4 (rl) up to 1.97 ± 1.64 mm for ANS (si). After theoretical adjustment of patients position to CVB 2 the resulting ta ranged from -0.11 ± 2.44 mm for CVB6 (ap) to 2.37 ± 2.17 mm for ANS (si). These data imply safety margins: uncorrected patient position: 3.63-9.95 mm, corrected positioning based upon the whole target volume (IGRT): 1.85-6.63 mm, corrected positioning based upon CVB 2 (IGRT): 3.13-6.66 mm.
conclusionsThe calculated safety margins differ between anatomic regions. Repetitive and frequent image control of patient positioning is necessary that, however, possibly may be focussed on a limited region.
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.