Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34646966›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Setup Accuracy in Craniospinal Irradiation: Implications for Planning Treatment Volume Margins.

Jennifer Novak, Dongsu Du, Ashwin Shinde, Richard Li, Arya Amini, Yi-Jen Chen, Jeffrey Wong, Chunhui Han, John Neylon, An Liu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Tomotherapy for cranio-spinal irradiation.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023
    Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer NovakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Dongsu DuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Ashwin ShindeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Richard LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Arya AminiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Yi-Jen ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Jeffrey WongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Chunhui HanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
John NeylonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
An LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Scott GlaserDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
City Of Hope National Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID34646966
PMCPMC8498716
OpenAlexW3179110468

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.