ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2018
Image guidance and positioning accuracy in clinical practice: influence of positioning errors and imaging dose on the real dose distribution for head and neck cancer treatment.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Multi-View Projection Synthesis Approach for Improving the Quality of Sparse-View CBCT in Image-Guided Radiotherapy.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- A Novel Approach for Position Verification and Dose Calculation through Local MVCT Reconstruction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based projection synthesis for low-dose cone-beam computed tomography imaging in image-guided radiotherapy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Review
- 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
- 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
- Analysis of dose using CBCT and synthetic CT during head and neck radiotherapy: A single centre feasibility study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Setup uncertainties and the optimal imaging schedule in the prone position whole breast radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Imaging dose and secondary cancer risk in image-guided radiotherapy of pediatric patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Evaluation of setup errors of immobilization device for radiation therapy in companion animals.Open veterinary journalArticle
- Investigation the Efficacy of Fuzzy Logic Implementation at Image-Guided Radiotherapy.Journal of medical signals and sensorsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern radiotherapy offers the possibility of highly accurate tumor treatment. To benefit from this precision at its best, regular positioning verification is necessary. By the use of image-guided radiotherapy and the application of safety margins the influence of positioning inaccuracies can be counteracted. In this study the effect of additional imaging dose by set-up verification is compared with the effect of dose smearing by positioning inaccuracies for a collective of head-and-neck cancer patients.
methodsThis study is based on treatment plans of 40 head-and-neck cancer patients. To evaluate the imaging dose several image guidance scenarios with different energies, techniques and frequencies were simulated and added to the original plan. The influence of the positioning inaccuracies was assessed by the use of real applied table shifts for positioning. The isocenters were shifted back appropriately to these values to simulate that no positioning correction had been performed. For the single fractions the shifted plans were summed considering three different scenarios: The summation of only shifted plans, the consideration of the original plan for the fractions with set-up verification, and the addition of the extra imaging dose to the latter. For both effects (additional imaging dose and dose smearing), plans were analyzed and compared considering target coverage, sparing of organs at risk (OAR) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).
resultsDaily verification of the patient positioning using 3D imaging with MV energies result in non-negligible high doses. kV imaging has only marginal influence on plan quality, primarily related to sparing of organs at risk, even with daily 3D imaging. For this collective, sparing of organs at risk and NTCP are worse due to potential positioning errors.
conclusionRegular set-up verification is essential for precise radiation treatment. Relating to the additional dose, the use of kV modalities is uncritical for any frequency and technique. Dose smearing due to positioning errors for this collective mainly resulted in a decrease of OAR sparing. Target coverage also suffered from the positioning inaccuracies, especially for individual patients. Taking into account both examined effects the relevance of an extensive IGRT is clearly present, even at the expense of additional imaging dose and time expenditure.
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.