Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29991927›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology

Immobilization versus no immobilization for pelvic external beam radiotherapy.

Avinash H Udayashankar, Shibina Noorjahan, Nirmala Srikantia, K Ravindra Babu, Sandeep Muzumder

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Avinash H UdayashankarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St John's Medical College Hospital, St John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore 560034, India.
Shibina NoorjahanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St John's Medical College Hospital, St John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore 560034, India.
Nirmala SrikantiaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St John's Medical College Hospital, St John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore 560034, India.
K Ravindra BabuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St John's Medical College Hospital, St John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore 560034, India.
Sandeep MuzumderDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St John's Medical College Hospital, St John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore 560034, India.
St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo identify the most reproducible technique of patient positioning and immobilization during pelvic radiotherapy.

backgroundRadiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of pelvic malignancies. Errors in positioning of patient are an integral component of treatment. The present study compares two methods of immobilization with no immobilization with an aim of identifying the most reproducible method. MATERIALS AND

methods65 consecutive patients receiving pelvic external beam radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. 30, 21 and 14 patients were treated with no-immobilization with a leg separator, whole body vacuum bag cushion (VBC) and six point aquaplast immobilization system, respectively. The systematic error, random error and the planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated for all the three techniques and statistically analyzed.

resultsThe systematic errors were the highest in the VBC and random errors were the highest in the aquaplast group. Both systematic and random errors were the lowest in patients treated with no-immobilization. 3D Systematic error (mm, mean ± 1SD) was 4.31 ± 3.84, 3.39 ± 1.71 and 2.42 ± 0.97 for VBC, aquaplast and no-immobilization, respectively. 3D random error (mm, 1SD) was 2.96, 3.59 and 1.39 for VBC, aquaplast and no-immobilization, respectively. The differences were statistically significant between all the three groups. The calculated PTV margins were the smallest for the no-immobilization technique with 4.56, 4.69 and 4.59 mm, respectively, in

conclusionsAmong the three techniques, no-immobilization technique with leg separator was the most reproducible technique with the smallest PTV margins. For obvious reasons, this technique is the least time consuming and most economically viable in developing countries.

Indexed as

3DCRT, three dimensional conformal radiotherapyAquaplastCBCT, cone beam computed tomographyCTV, clinical target volumeEPID, electronic portal imaging deviceImmobilizationIMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapyNo-immobilizationPelvic radiotherapyPTV, planning target volumeSD, standard deviationSetup errorsTE, total errorVacuum bag cushionVBC, vacuum bag cushion

Identifiers

PMID29991927
PMCPMC6035901
OpenAlexW2804594449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.