Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31738473›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020

Assessment of the use of different imaging and delivery techniques for cranial treatments on the Halcyon linac.

Everardo Flores-Martinez, Laura I Cerviño, Todd Pawlicki, Gwe-Ya Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Characterization of the IDENTIFYJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Recent advanced in Surface Guided Radiation Therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
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

4 authors.

Everardo Flores-MartinezDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Laura I CerviñoDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Todd PawlickiDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Gwe-Ya KimDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this work, we investigated the effect on the workflow and setup accuracy of using surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) for patient setup, megavoltage cone beam CT (MVCBCT) or kilovoltage cone beam CT (kVCBCT) for imaging and fixed IMRT or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for treatment delivery with the Halcyon linac.

methodsWe performed a retrospective investigation of 272 treatment fractions, using three different workflows. The first and second workflows used MVCBCT and fixed IMRT for imaging and treatment delivery, and the second one also used SGRT for patient setup. The third workflow used SGRT for setup, kVCBCT for imaging and VMAT for delivery. Workflows were evaluated by comparing the number of fractions requiring repeated imaging acquisitions and the time required for setup, imaging and treatment delivery. Setup position accuracy was assessed by comparing the daily kV- or MV- CBCT with the planning CT and measuring the residual rotational errors for pitch, yaw and roll angles.

resultsWithout the use of SGRT, the imaging fields were delivered more than once on 11.1% of the fractions, while re-imaging was necessary in 5.5% of the fractions using SGRT. The total treatment time, including setup, imaging, and delivery, for the three workflows was 531 ± 157 s, 503 ± 130 s and 457 ± 91 s, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the third workflow with the first two. The total residual rotational errors were 1.96 ± 1.29°, 1.28 ± 0.67° and 1.22 ± 0.76° and statistically significant differences were observed when comparing workflows with and without SGRT.

conclusionsThe use of SGRT allowed for a reduction of re-imaging during patient setup and improved patient position accuracy by reducing residual rotational errors. A reduction in treatment time using kVCBCT with SGRT was observed. The most efficient workflow was the one including kVCBCT and SGRT for setup and VMAT for delivery.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingBrain NeoplasmsCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedParticle AcceleratorsPatient PositioningRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy Setup ErrorsRetrospective StudiesAlignRTHalcyonrotational errorsSGRTsurface guided radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID31738473
PMCPMC6964767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.