Observational studyJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Comparison of setup accuracy and efficiency between the Klarity system and BodyFIX system for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.
Observational study 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Workflow of Spine Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery: Insights from a Single-Institution Physics Perspective.Cancers · 2026Article
- Optimizing Motion Management and Baseline Shifts in Magnetic Resonance-Guided Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.Cancers · 2025Article
- Comparison of setup accuracy and efficiency between the Klarity system and BodyFIX system for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) uses highly conformal dose distributions and sharp dose gradients to cover targets in proximity to the spinal cord or cauda equina, which requires precise patient positioning and immobilization to deliver safe treatments.
aimsGiven some limitations with the BodyFIX system in our practice, we sought to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of the Klarity SBRT patient immobilization system in comparison to the BodyFIX system.
methodsTwenty-three patients with 26 metastatic spinal lesions (78 fractions) were enrolled in this prospective observational study with one of two systems - BodyFIX (n = 11) or Klarity (n = 12). All patients were initially set up to external marks and positioned to match bony anatomy on ExacTrac images. Table corrections given by ExacTrac during setup and intrafractional monitoring and deviations from pre- and posttreatment CBCT images were analyzed.
resultsFor initial setup accuracy, the Klarity system showed larger differences between initial skin mark alignment and the first bony alignment on ExacTrac than BodyFIX, especially in the vertical (mean [SD] of 5.7 mm [4.1 mm] for Klarity vs. 1.9 mm [1.7 mm] for BodyFIX, p-value < 0.01) and lateral (5.4 mm [5.1 mm] for Klarity vs. 3.2 mm [3.2 mm] for BodyFIX, p-value 0.02) directions. For set-up stability, no significant differences (all p-values > 0.05) were observed in the maximum magnitude of positional deviations between the two systems. For setup efficiency, Klarity system achieved desired bony alignment with similar number of setup images and similar setup time (14.4 min vs. 15.8 min, p-value = 0.41). For geometric uncertainty, systematic and random errors were found to be slightly less with Klarity than with BodyFIX based on an analytical calculation.
conclusionWith image-guided correction of initial alignment by external marks, the Klarity system can provide accurate and efficient patient immobilization. It can be a promising alternative to the BodyFIX system for spine SBRT while providing potential workflow benefits depending on one's practice environment.
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.