Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35958289›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022

Intrafractional monitoring of patients using four different immobilization mask systems for cranial radiotherapy.

Daniel Reitz, Johannes Muecke, Vanessa da Silva Mendes, Guillaume Landry, Michael Reiner, Maximilian Niyazi, Claus Belka, Philipp Freislederer, Stefanie Corradini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Use of surface tracking recordings to identify pitfalls during surface-guided radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Synthetic CTs for MRI-only brain RT treatment: integration of immobilization systems.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel ReitzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Johannes MueckeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Vanessa da Silva MendesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Guillaume LandryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Michael ReinerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Maximilian NiyaziDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Claus BelkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Philipp FreisledererDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Stefanie CorradiniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Patients receiving cranial radiotherapy are immobilized with a thermoplastic mask to restrict patient motion. Depending on the target volume margins and treatment dose, different mask systems are used. Intrafractional movements can be monitored using stereoscopic X-ray imaging. The aim of the present work was to compare the magnitudes of intrafractional deviation for different mask systems. Material and methods: Four different head mask systems (open face mask, open mask, stereotactic mask, double mask) used in the treatment of 40 patients were investigated. In total 487 treatment fractions and 3708 X-ray images were collected. Deviations were calculated by comparison of the acquired X-ray images with digitally reconstructed radiographs. The results of intrafractional X-ray deviations for translational and rotational axes were compared between the different mask systems. Results: Deviations were below 0.6 mm for translations and below 0.6° for rotations for all mask systems. Along the lateral and longitudinal directions the stereotactic mask was superior, while along the vertical direction the double mask showed the lowest deviations. For low rotational deviations the double mask is the best amongst all other mask systems. Conclusion: As expected, the lowest movement was shown using cranial stereotactic mask systems. The results have shown deviations lower than 0.6 mm and 0.6° using any of the four thermoplastic mask systems.

Identifiers

PMID35958289
PMCPMC9361321
OpenAlexW4287448978

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.