ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2021
The use of tumour markers in oesophageal cancer to quantify setup errors and baseline shifts during treatment.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo prospectively evaluate the feasibility of solid gold marker placement in oesophageal cancer patients and to quantify inter-fractional and intra-fractional (baseline shift) marker motion during radiation treatment. Radiotherapy target margins and matching strategies were investigated. MATERIALS/
methodsThirty-four markers were implanted by echo-endoscopy in 10 patients. Patients received a planning 4D CT, daily pre-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) and a post-treatment CBCT for at least five fractions. For fractions with both pre- and post-treatment CBCT, marker displacement between planning CT and pre-treatment CBCT (inter-fractional) and between pre-treatment and post-treatment CBCT (intra-fractional; only for fractions without rotational treatment couch correction) were calculated in left-right (LR), cranio-caudal (CC) and anterior-posterior (AP) direction after bony-anatomy and soft-tissue matching. Systematic/random setup errors were estimated; treatment margins were calculated.
resultsNo serious adverse events occurred. Twenty-three (67.6%) markers were visible during radiotherapy (n = 3 middle oesophagus, n = 16 distal oesophagus, n = 4 proximal stomach). Margins for inter-fractional displacement after bony-anatomy match depended on the localisation of the primary tumour and were 11.2 mm (LR), 16.4 mm (CC) and 8.2 mm (AP) for distal markers. Soft-tissue matching reduced the CC margin for these markers (16.4 mm to 10.5 mm). The mean intra-fractional shift of 12 distal markers was 0.4 mm (LR), 2.3 mm (CC) and 0.7 mm (AP). Inclusion of this shift resulted in treatment margins for distal markers of 12.8 mm (LR), 17.3 mm (CC) and 10.4 mm (AP) after bony-anatomy matching and 12.4 mm (LR), 11.4 mm (CC) and 9.7 mm (AP) after soft-tissue matching.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that the implantation of gold markers was safe, albeit less stable compared to other marker types. Inter-fractional motion was largest cranio-caudally for markers in the distal oesophagus, which was reduced after soft-tissue compared to bony-anatomy matching. The impact of intra-fractional baseline shifts on margin calculation was rather small.
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.