ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Clinical Implementation of a 6D Treatment Chair for Fixed Ion Beam Lines.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. 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.
- Feasibility of upright carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Dosimetric comparison between supine and upright postures.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Quantifying upright positioning accuracy with optical surface tracking in radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Upright positioning enhances beam angle optimization and organ sparing in head and neck carbon-ion radiotherapy with fixed-beam systems.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Assessment of upright immobilization methods for abdominal and head-and-neck cancer treatments in a carbon ion radiotherapy setting.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Modeling and Validation of a Proton Therapy Couch Top.International journal of particle therapy · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of residual setup errors in head and neck patients from upright versus supine radiotherapy postures.Medical physics · 2025Article
- A radiation therapy platform to enable upright cone beam computed tomography and future upright treatment on existing photon therapy machines.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Image-Guided Proton Therapy: A Comprehensive Review.Cancers · 2023Review
- Considerations for Upright Particle Therapy Patient Positioning and Associated Image Guidance.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Proton therapy with a fixed beamline for skull-base chordomas and chondrosarcomas: outcomes and toxicity.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Future Developments in Charged Particle Therapy: Improving Beam Delivery for Efficiency and Efficacy.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo verify the practicality and safety of a treatment chair with six degrees of freedom (6DTC) through demonstrating the efficacy of the workflow in clinical settings and analyzing the obtained technical data, including intra-fraction patient movement during the use of the 6DTC. MATERIALS AND
methodsA clinical study was designed and conducted to test the clinical treatment workflow and the safety of the 6DTC. Based on the demonstrated dosimetric advantages, fifteen patients with head and neck tumors were selected and treated with the 6DTC. The positional error at the first beam position (PE-B1) and the second beam position (PE-B2) were analyzed and compared with the results from daily quality assurance (QA) procedures of the 6DTC and imaging system performed each day before clinical treatment. The intra-fraction patient movement was derived from the total patient alignment positional error and the QA data based on a Gaussian distribution formulism.
resultsThe QA results showed sub-millimeter mechanical accuracy of the 6DTC over the course of the clinical study. For 150 patient treatment fractions, the mean deviations between PE-B1 and PE-B2 were 0.13mm (SD 0.88mm), 0.25mm (SD 1.17mm), -0.57mm (SD 0.85mm), 0.02° (SD 0.35°), 0.00° (SD 0.37°), and -0.02° (SD 0.37°) in the x, y, z (translational), and u, v, w (rotational) directions, respectively. The calculated intra-fraction patient movement was -0.08mm (SD 0.56mm), 0.71mm (SD 1.12mm), -0.52mm (SD 0.84mm), 0.10° (SD 0.32°), 0.09° (SD 0.36°), and -0.04° (SD 0.36°) in the x, y, z, u, v, w directions, respectively.
conclusionsThe performance stability of the 6DTC was satisfactory. The position accuracy and intra-fraction patient movement in an upright posture with the 6DTC were verified and found adequate for clinical implementation.
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.