ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023
Evaluation of initial patient setup methods for breast cancer between surface-guided radiation therapy and laser alignment based on skin marking in the Halcyon system.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and evaluation of a novel water-based pigment marker for radiation therapy skin marking.Radiological physics and technology · 2023Trial
- Commissioning and clinical positioning assessment of a novel surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system at a C-Arm linear accelerator.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Patient and staff perspective toward marker-less patient setup accuracy in breast radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Skin marker combined with surface-guided auto-positioning for breast DIBH radiotherapy daily initial patient setup: An optimal schedule for both accuracy and efficiency.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Surface-Guided Radiotherapy: Can We Move on from the Era of Three-Point Markers to the New Era of Thousands of Points?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study was conducted to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of the daily patient setup for breast cancer patients by applying surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) using the Halcyon system instead of conventional laser alignment based on the skin marking method. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively investigated 228 treatment fractions using two different initial patient setup methods. The accuracy of the residual rotational error of the SGRT system was evaluated by using an in-house breast phantom. The residual translational error was analyzed using the couch position difference in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions between the reference computed tomography and daily kilo-voltage cone beam computed tomography acquired from the record and verification system. The residual rotational error (pitch, yaw, and roll) was also calculated using an auto rigid registration between the two images based on Velocity. The total setup time, which combined the initial setup time and imaging time, was analyzed to evaluate the efficiency of the daily patient setup for SGRT.
resultsThe average residual rotational errors using the in-house fabricated breast phantom for pitch, roll, and yaw were 0.14°, 0.13°, and 0.29°, respectively. The average differences in the couch positions for laser alignment based on the skin marking method were 2.7 ± 1.6 mm, 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm for the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. For SGRT, the average differences in the couch positions were 1.9 ± 1.2 mm, 2.9 ± 2.1 mm, and 1.9 ± 0.7 mm for the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The rotational errors for pitch, yaw, and roll without the surface-guided radiation therapy approach were 0.32 ± 0.30°, 0.51 ± 0.24°, and 0.29 ± 0.22°, respectively. For SGRT, the rotational errors were 0.30 ± 0.22°, 0.51 ± 0.26°, and 0.19 ± 0.13°, respectively. The average total setup times considering both the initial setup time and imaging time were 314 s and 331 s, respectively, with and without SGRT.
conclusionWe demonstrated that using SGRT improves the accuracy and efficiency of initial patient setups in breast cancer patients using the Halcyon system, which has limitations in correcting the rotational offset.
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.