Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39143970›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2024

Unmasking anxiety: a head-to-head comparison of open and closed masks in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.

Aisling M Glynn, Rachel Harwood, Bill Garrett, Dean Harper, Mary Dunne, Jill Nicholson, Guhan Rangaswamy, Fran Duane, John Armstrong, Orla McArdle and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Biomedicines · 2026
    Article
  4. lncRNABiomedicines · 2025
    Article
  5. Clinical governance in radiation oncology.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025
    Review
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

11 authors.

Aisling M GlynnSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Rachel HarwoodSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Bill GarrettSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Dean HarperSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Mary DunneSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Jill NicholsonSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Guhan RangaswamySt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Fran DuaneSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
John ArmstrongSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Orla McArdleSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Sinead BrennanSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Facemasks accurately immobilise patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receiving radiotherapy (RT). However, such masks are associated with treatment related distress, a prognostic factor for poorer survival. Open masks offer increased comfort and patient satisfaction. We investigated whether open masks could immobilise patients without affecting treatment accuracy. Materials and methods: Over an 18-month period, all HNC RT patients with anxiety were offered open masks. Once 30 patients had completed treatment, set-up data was compared to patients in closed masks. The mean displacement and one-dimensional standard deviations (SD) of the mean, systematic and random set-up errors were calculated for translational directions: anterior-posterior ( Results: Sixty patients were included (30 open & 30 closed masks). There was no statistically significant difference found in the x (p = 0.701), y (p = 0.246) or z (p = 0.535) direction for the SD of the mean displacements between both masks. No statistically significant difference was found in the SD of means for rotational displacements. The calculated planning target volume (PTV) margin requirements were minimally less for the closed masks 3.5, 2.6, and 2.7 mm (x, y, z, respectively) versus 4.2, 3.2, and 3.7 mm, respectively, for open masks. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that open masks maintain accuracy at levels comparable to closed masks in patients with anxiety. The minor difference in the calculated PTV margin could be rectified with daily on-line imaging or surface guided imaging.

Indexed as

anxietyHNCimmobilisationopen-maskradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID39143970
PMCPMC11321773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.