ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024
Exploring the Use of Contour-Based Intrafraction Motion Review for Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatments.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient motion during radiation therapy treatment is a concern, especially for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy cases where the sharper dose gradient presents a toxicity threat to the spinal cord. Intrafraction motion review (IMR) is an application used to monitor patient position during treatment. The presence of spinal fixation hardware presents an opportunity for motion tracking to manually pause the beam. Methods and Materials: A cohort of 17 clinicians were shown a video of the imaging console during a simulated treatment. Participants decided after each triggered image if they would pause the treatment beam, indicating that they believed the phantom to have moved outside of clinical tolerance. A spine phantom with hardware intact was positioned on a motion platform, which was programmed to make shifts ranging in size from 0.5 to 1.5 mm. A 1-mm isotropic expansion contour from the hardware was overlayed on the triggered planar x-ray images using the IMR application. Results: User perception sensitivity did not exceed 0.5 until there was a physical shift of 1.4 mm, indicating that most users will not be able to reliably discriminate submillimeter shifts using contour-based shift identification. Conclusions: If adaptations to standard of care are implemented clinically, the proposed method should be evaluated and the role of training and education should be examined before implementation. However, contour-based IMR could still provide beneficial information for larger intrafraction motion during treatment and could be valuable for identifying gross anatomic motion during treatment.
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.