Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37793626›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology journal2023

Application of surface-guided radiation therapy in prostate cancer: comparative analysis of differences with skin marking-guided patient setup.

Jaeha Lee, Yeon Joo Kim, Youngmoon Goh, Eunyeong Yang, Ha Un Kim, Si Yeol Song, Young Seok Kim

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jaeha LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yeon Joo KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Youngmoon GohDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Eunyeong YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ha Un KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Si Yeol SongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young Seok KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ulsan College · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSurface-guided radiation therapy is an image-guided method using optical surface imaging that has recently been adopted for patient setup and motion monitoring during treatment. We aimed to determine whether the surface guide setup is accurate and efficient compared to the skin-marking guide in prostate cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe skin-marking setup was performed, and vertical, longitudinal, and lateral couch values (labeled as "M") were recorded. Subsequently, the surface-guided setup was conducted, and couch values (labeled as "S") were recorded. After performing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the final couch values was recorded (labeled as "C"), and the shift value was calculated (labeled as "Gap (M-S)," "Gap (M-C)," "Gap (S-C)") and then compared. Additionally, the setup times for the skin marking and surface guides were also compared.

resultsOne hundred and twenty-five patients were analyzed, totaling 2,735 treatment fractions. Gap (M-S) showed minimal differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral averages (-0.03 cm, 0.07 cm, and 0.06 cm, respectively). Gap (M-C) and Gap (S-C) exhibited a mean difference of 0.04 cm (p = 0.03) in the vertical direction, a mean difference of 0.35 cm (p = 0.52) in the longitudinal direction, and a mean difference of 0.11 cm (p = 0.91) in the lateral direction. There was no correlation between shift values and patient characteristics. The average setup time of the skin-marking guide was 6.72 minutes, and 7.53 minutes for the surface guide.

conclusionThere was no statistically significant difference between the surface and skin-marking guides regarding final CBCT shift values and no correlation between translational shift values and patient characteristics. We also observed minimal difference in setup time between the two methods. Therefore, the surface guide can be considered an accurate and time-efficient alternative to skin-marking guides.

Indexed as

Image-guided radiotherapyPatient setupSurface-guided radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37793626
PMCPMC10556842
OpenAlexW4386837753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.