Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33640219›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2022

Evaluation of the inter- and intrafraction displacement for head patients treated at the particle therapy centre MedAustron based on the comparison of different commercial immobilisation devices.

Andrea Zechner, Ingrid Ziegler, Eugen Hug, Carola Lütgendorf-Caucig, Markus Stock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2022. 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

5 authors.

Andrea ZechnerMedAustron Ion Therapy Centre, Wiener Neustadt, Austria. Electronic address: andrea.zechner@medaustron.at.
Ingrid ZieglerUniversity Clinic for Radiotherapy and Radio-Oncology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Eugen HugMedAustron Ion Therapy Centre, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Carola Lütgendorf-CaucigMedAustron Ion Therapy Centre, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Markus StockMedAustron Ion Therapy Centre, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In December 2016 the clinical operation has started at the particle therapy centre MedAustron, Wiener Neustadt, Austria. Different commercial immobilisation devices are used for head patients. These immobilisation devices are a combination of table tops (Qfix BoS™ Headframe, Elekta HeadStep™), pillows (BoS™ Standard pillow, Moldcare®, HeadStep™ pillow) and thermoplastic masks (Klarity Green™, Qfix Fibreplast™, HeadStep™ iCAST double). For each patient image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is performed by acquiring orthogonal X-ray imaging and 2D3D registration and the application of the resulting 6-degree of freedom (DOF) position correction on the robotic couch. The inter- and intrafraction displacement of 101 adult head patients and 27 paediatric sedated head patients were evaluated and compared among each other regarding reproducibility during the entire treatment and stability during each fraction. For the comparison, statistical methods (Shapiro-Wilk test, Mann-Whitney U-test) were applied on the position corrections as well as on the position verifications. The actual planning target volume margins of 3mm (adults) and 2mm (children) were evaluated by applying the van Herk formula on the intrafraction displacement results and performing treatment plan robustness simulations of twelve different translational offset scenarios including a HU uncertainty of 3.5%. Statistically significant differences between the immobilisation devices were found, but they turned out to be clinically irrelevant. The margin calculation for adult head patients resulted in 0.8mm (lateral), 1.2mm (cranio-caudal) and 0.6mm (anterior-posterior), and for paediatric head patients under anaesthesia in 0.8mm (lateral), 0.5mm (cranio-caudal) and 0.9mm (anterior-posterior). Based on these values, robustness evaluations of selected adult head patients and sedated children showed the validity of the currently used PTV margins.

Indexed as

ImmobilizationRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedChildHumansMasksRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsIGRTImage-guided proton radiotherapyImmobilisation deviceInterfraction movementIntrafraction movementMarginThermoplastic mask

Identifiers

PMID33640219
PMCPMC9948876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.