ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2023
Are liver contour and bone fusion comparable to fiducials for IGRT in liver SBRT?
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2023. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly being used to treat tumours. The purpose of this study was to compare the differences in patient positioning when using implanted fiducials as surrogates compared to alternative methods based on liver contour or bone registration. Material and methods: Eighteen patients treated with SBRT who underwent a fiducial placement procedure were included. Fiducial guidance was our gold standard to guide treatment in this study. After recording the displacements, when fusing the planning CT and CBCT performed in the treatment unit using fiducials, liver contour and bone reference, the differences between fiducials and liver contour and bone reference were calculated. Data from 88 CBCT were analyzed. The correlation between the displacements found with fiducials and those performed based on the liver contour and the nearest bone structure as references was determined. The mean, median, variance, range and standard deviation of the displacements with each of the fusion methods were obtained. μ, Ʃ, and σ values and margins were obtained. Results: Lateral displacements of less than 3 mm with respect to the gold standard in 92% vs. 62.5% of cases using liver contour and bone references, respectively, with 93.2% vs. 65.9% in the AP axis and SI movement in 69.3% vs. 51.1%. The errors μ, σ and Ʃ of the fusions with hepatic contour and bone reference in SI were 0.26 mm, 4 mm and 3 mm, and 0.8 mm, 5 mm and 3 mm respectively. Conclusion: Our study showed that displacements were smaller with the use of hepatic contour compared to bone reference and comparable to those obtained with the use of fiducials in the lateral, AP and SI motion axes. This would justify that hepatic contouring can be a guide in the treatment of patients in the absence of fiducials.
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.