ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Setup Accuracy in Craniospinal Irradiation: Implications for Planning Treatment Volume Margins.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Helical tomotherapy craniospinal irradiation in primary brain tumours: Toxicities and outcomes in a peadiatric and adult population.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- SGRT-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer setup accuracy and margin of the PTV.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning for Craniospinal Irradiation With a New O-ring Linac.Cureus · 2023Article
- Tomotherapy for cranio-spinal irradiation.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCraniospinal irradiation (CSI) using tomotherapy has advantages over standard 3-dimensional techniques. However, there is a paucity of published data on craniospinal setup reproducibility to guide appropriate planning treatment volume (PTV) margins. We sought to evaluate the setup accuracy of patients undergoing CSI to optimize PTV margins. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We measured residual setup deviation between simulation computed tomography (CT) and daily megavoltage CT after couch shifts made by therapists after megavoltage CT-based image registration for 10 patients who completed CSI at our institution. Translational displacement values were recorded at the sella, top of T1, and top of L5 in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral planes. Systematic and random error were calculated from displacement values. Using
resultsThe mean setup deviation in the AP plane across all treatments was 2.49, 3.40, and 3.83 mm at the sella, T1, and L5, respectively. Mean lateral setup error was 2.86, 4.02, and 5.46 mm at the sella, T1, and L5, respectively. Systematic error ranged from 0.75 to 1.01 mm at the sella, 1.09 to 1.37 mm at T1, and 1.30 to 1.50 mm at L5. Random error ranged from 1.35 to 1.41 mm at the sella, 1.48 to 1.73 mm at T1, and 2.26 to 2.37 mm at L5. The minimum margin to cover 90% of the treatments was 6.4, 8.2, and 10.5 mm at the sella, T1, and L5, respectively. There appeared to be a correlation between older age and lateral setup error in the L spine approaching statistical significance (R, 0.629;
conclusionsSetup error increases in the caudal direction of the spine and is greater in the lateral plane compared with the AP plane. We recommend a PTV margin of 5 to 7 mm in the brain and 10 mm in the spine.
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.