ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Comparison of dynamic tumor tracking error measurement methods for robotic radiosurgery.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mathematical Modeling Support for Lung Cancer Therapy-A Short Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Comparison of dynamic tumor tracking error measurement methods for robotic radiosurgery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDynamic tumor motion tracking is used in robotic radiosurgery for targets subject to respiratory motion, such as lung and liver cancers. Different methods of measuring tracking error have been reported, but the differences among these methods have not been studied, and the optimal method is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess and compare tracking errors encountered with individual patients using different evaluation methods for method optimization.
methodsWe compared the beam's eye view (BEV), machine learning (ML), log (addition error: AE), and log (root sum square: RSS) methods. Log (AE) and log (RSS) were calculated from log files. These tracking errors were compared, and the optimal evaluation method was ascertained. A t-test was performed to evaluate statistically significant differences. Here, the significance level was set at 5%.
resultsThe mean values of BEV, log (AE), log (RSS), and ML were 2.87, 3.91, 2.91, and 3.74 mm, respectively. The log (AE) and ML were higher than BEV (p < 0.001), and log (RSS) was equivalent to the BEV, suggesting that the log (RSS) calculated with the log file method can substitute for the BEV calculated with the BEV method. As RSS error calculation is simpler than BEV calculation, using it may improve clinical practice throughput.
conclusionThis study clarified differences among three tracking error evaluation methods for dynamic tumor tracking radiotherapy using a robotic radiosurgery system. The log (RSS) calculated by the log file method was found to be the best alternative to BEV method, as it can calculate tracking errors more easily than the BEV method.
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.