ArticleJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT2022
A retrospective study on clinical factors influencing intra-fraction motion using volumetric imaging for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT, 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the spine is challenging due to high-dose gradients sparing the cord in the treatment plans. We present our findings of initial setup error and intrafraction motion from Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Materials and methods: A total of 47 patients treated with spine SBRT with a total of 154 fractions following a fractionation schedule of 16 Gy in 1, 24 Gy in 2, and 30 Gy in 5 fractions were part of this study. Pre-treatment CBCT was used for localization of the target and couch shifts were applied based on target volume matching to the planning CT image set. Post-treatment CBCT was acquired for all fractions. Intrafraction motion (IFM) was calculated by matching post-treatment CBCT to planning CT for the target volume. Results: The average Intrafraction motion was 1.6 ± 0.9 mm for the study cohort. The average and standard deviation of intrafraction motion were 0.4 ± 1.1 (AP), 0.3 ± 0.9 (SI) and 0.2 ± 1.2 (RL) respectively. The average Initial setup error tabulated from the offline review showed a mean value of 7.8 ± 5.3 mm. The average and standard deviation of the initial setup error were 2.5 ± 5.5 (AP), 2.4 ± 5.3(SI), and 0.8 ± 4.5(RL) respectively. The correlation of intrafraction motion with body mass index (BMI) and the number of consecutive vertebrae levels did not show any statistical significance, however, there was a significant association with gender as women showed more IFM. Conclusions: Our study on intrafraction motion from CBCT images reinforced the importance of immobilization and imaging for positioning spine SBRT patients. Advances in knowledge: The need for CBCT and imagining for positional errors is emphasized while treating with SBRT spine and the need for proper immobilization techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37416338PMC10322170W4383483576What 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.