ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface-guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying upright positioning accuracy with optical surface tracking in radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Accuracy and workflow efficiency of surface-guided open-face vs. closed-face masks in SRT/SRS for brain metastases.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Control-point-specific plan robustness in volumetric modulated arc therapy-based cranial radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- New findings on clinical experience on surface-guided radiotherapy for frameless non-coplanar stereotactic radiosurgery treatments.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Article
- Mask dependency of the lacrimal gland dose under whole brain radiotherapy when the six-degrees of freedom couch is not available.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Clinical value of styrofoam fixation in intracranial tumor radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of intrafractional motion with two frameless immobilization systems in surface-guided intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PURPOSE/
objectivesThe aim of this study is to compare intrafractional motion using two commercial non-invasive immobilization systems for linac-based intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) under guidance with a surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system. MATERIALS/
methodsTwenty-one patients who received intracranial SRS were retrospectively selected. Ten patients were immobilized with a vacuum fixation biteplate system, while 11 patients were immobilized with an open-face mask system. A setup margin of 1 mm was used in treatment planning. Real-time surface motion data in 37 treatment fractions using the vacuum fixation system and 44 fractions using the open-face mask were recorded by an SGRT system. Variances of intrafractional motion along three translational directions and three rotational directions were compared between the two immobilization techniques with Levene's tests. Intrafractional motion variation over time during treatments was also evaluated.
resultsUsing the vacuum fixation system, the average and standard deviations of the shifts were 0.01 ± 0.18 mm, -0.06 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.02 ± 0.26 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) directions, and -0.02 ± 0.19°, -0.01 ± 0.13°, and 0.01 ± 0.13° for rotations in yaw, roll, and pitch, respectively; using the open-face mask system, the average and standard deviations of the shifts were -0.06 ± 0.20 mm, -0.02 ± 0.35 mm, and 0.01 ± 0.40 mm in the AP, SI, and LR directions, and were 0.05 ± 0.23°, 0.02 ± 0.21°, and 0.00 ± 0.16° for rotations in yaw, roll, and pitch, respectively. There was a significant increase in intrafractional motion variance over time during treatments.
conclusionPatients with the vacuum fixation system had significantly smaller intrafractional motion variation compared to those with the open-face mask system. Using intrafractional motion techniques such as surface imaging system is recommended to minimize dose deviation due to intrafractional motion. The increase in intrafractional motion over time indicates clinical benefits with shorter treatment time.
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.