ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Setup error assessment based on "Sphere-Mask" Optical Positioning System: Results from a multicenter study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The setup accuracy plays an extremely important role in the local control of tumors. The purpose of this study is to verify the feasibility of "Sphere-Mask" Optical Positioning System (S-M_OPS) for fast and accurate setup. Methods: From 2016 to 2021, we used S-M_OPS to supervise 15441 fractions in 1981patients (with the cancer in intracalvarium, nasopharynx, esophagus, lung, liver, abdomen or cervix) undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and recorded the data such as registration time and mask deformation. Then, we used S-M_OPS, laser line and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for co-setup in 277 fractions, and recorded laser line-guided setup errors and S-M_OPS-guided setup errors with CBCT-guided setup result as the standard. Results: S-M_OPS supervision results: The average time for laser line-guided setup was 31.75s. 12.8% of the reference points had an average deviation of more than 2 mm and 5.2% of the reference points had an average deviation of more than 3 mm. Co-setup results: The average time for S-M_OPS-guided setup was 7.47s, and average time for CBCT-guided setup was 228.84s (including time for CBCT scan and manual verification). In the LAT (left/right), VRT (superior/inferior) and LNG (anterior/posterior) directions, laser line-guided setup errors (mean±SD) were -0.21±3.13mm, 1.02±2.76mm and 2.22±4.26mm respectively; the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of laser line-guided setup errors were -6.35 to 5.93mm, -4.39 to 6.43mm and -6.14 to 10.58mm respectively; S-M_OPS-guided setup errors were 0.12±1.91mm, 1.02±1.81mm and -0.10±2.25mm respectively; the 95% CIs of S-M_OPS-guided setup errors were -3.86 to 3.62mm, -2.53 to 4.57mm and -4.51 to 4.31mm respectively. Conclusion: S-M_OPS can greatly improve setup accuracy and stability compared with laser line-guided setup. Furthermore, S-M_OPS can provide comparable setup accuracy to CBCT in less setup 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.