Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33447079›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2020

Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife.

Chen-Lin Kang, Tsair-Fwu Lee, Shan-Ho Chan, Shyh-Chang Liu, Jui-Chu Wang, Cheng-Hsiang Tsai, Kuan-Cho Liao, Fu-Min Fang, Liyun Chang, Chun-Chieh Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Precision sniper for solid tumors: CAR-NK cell therapy.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chen-Lin KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Tsair-Fwu LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3112-3594
Shan-Ho ChanDepartment of Medical Imaging and Radiology, Shu-Zen Junior College of Medicine and Management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Shyh-Chang LiuDepartment of Information Engineering, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Jui-Chu WangDepartment of Anatomical Pathology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cheng-Hsiang TsaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Kuan-Cho LiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Fu-Min FangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Liyun ChangDepartment of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chun-Chieh HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-6044-1498
Chang Gung University · TWI-Shou University · TWKaohsiung Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMaintaining immobilization to minimize spine motion is very important during salvage stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for recurrent head and neck cancer. This study aimed to compare the intrafractional motion between two immobilization methods. PATIENTS AND

methodsWith a spine tracking system for image guiding, 9094 records from 41 patients receiving SABR by CyberKnife were obtained for retrospective comparison. Twenty-one patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and headrest (Group A), and another 20 patients used a thermoplastic mask and headrest together with a vacuum bag to support the head and neck area (Group B). The intrafractional motion in the X (superior-inferior), Y (right-left), Z (anterior-posterior) axes, 3D (three-dimensional) vector, Roll, Pitch and Yaw in the two groups was compared. The margins of the planning target volume (PTV) to cover 95% intrafractional motion were evaluated.

resultsThe translational movements in the X-axis, Y-axis, and 3D vector in Group A were significantly smaller than in Group B. The rotational errors in the Roll and Yaw in Group A were also significantly smaller than those in Group B; conversely, those in the Pitch in Group A were larger. To cover 95% intrafractional motion, margins of 0.96, 1.55, and 1.51 mm in the X, Y and Z axes, respectively were needed in Group A, and 1.06, 2.86, and 1.34 mm, respectively were required in Group B.

conclusionThe immobilization method of thermoplastic mask and head rest with vacuum bag did not provide better immobilization than that without vacuum bag in most axes. The clinical use of 2 mm as a margin of PTV to cover 95% intrafractional motion was adequate in Group A but not in Group B.

Indexed as

CyberKnifehead and neck cancerimmobilization methodintrafractional motionstereotactic ablative radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID33447079
PMCPMC7802594
OpenAlexW3120380873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.