ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
Comparing immobilisation devices in gynaecological external beam radiotherapy: improving inter-fraction reproducibility of pelvic tilt.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing inter-fraction set-up accuracy and margin minimization (E-SAMM): a comparison of maskless surface-guided and mask-based laser alignment positioning in pelvic radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- A Retrospective Evaluation of Setup Errors Associated with Respiratory Motion Management Techniques in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatic Malignancies.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
- Continuing Professional Development - Radiation Therapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim was to determine which immobilisation device improved inter-fraction reproducibly of pelvic tilt and required the least pre-treatment setup and planning interventions.
methodsSixteen patients were retrospectively reviewed, eight immobilised using the BodyFIX system (BodyFIX®, Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and eight using the Butterfly Board (BB) (Bionix Radiation Therapy, Toledo, OH, USA). The daily pre-treatment images were reviewed to assess setup variations between each patient and groups for pelvic tilt, pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and the fifth lumbar spine (L5).
resultsCompared with the planning CT, pelvic tilt for most patients was within ±2° using the BodyFIX and ± 4° for the BB. The Butterfly Board had a slightly higher variance both for patient-to-patient (standard deviation of the systematic error) and day-to-day error (standard deviation of the random error). Variance in position between individual patients and the two stabilisation devices were minimal in the anterior-posterior (AP) and superior-inferior (SI) direction for the pubic symphysis, sacral promontory and L5 spine. Re-imaged fractions due to pelvic tilt reduced by about half when BodyFIX was used (39.1% BB, 19.4% BodyFIX). One patient treated with the BB required a re-scan for pelvic tilt. Three patients required a re-scan for body contour variations (two using BodyFIX and one with the BB).
conclusionsBodyFIX resulted in a more accurate inter-fraction setup and efficient treatment and is used as the standard stabilisation for gynaecological patients at our centre. It reduced the pelvic tilt variance and reduced the need for re-imaging pre-treatment by half.
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.