ArticleCureus2024
Treatment Reproducibility in Brain Stereotactic Radiotherapy Using a Shim Mask Versus a Standard Mask.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the setup accuracy of the new shim mask with mouth bite compared to the standard full brain mask in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and radiotherapy (SRT) treatments for brain metastases or tumors. Method A combined retrospective and prospective design was employed, involving 40 patients treated at our center. Patients previously treated using standard head masks formed the retrospective cohort, while those treated with the Shim mask and mouth bite formed the prospective cohort. Daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained before each treatment session to ensure patient setup accuracy. Key metrics included absolute shifts in translational and rotational directions, the number of repeat CBCTs, and the time interval between CBCTs. Results The Shim mask significantly reduced the mean setup errors in the lateral translation (p=0.022) from 0.17 cm (SD=0.10) to 0.10 cm (SD=0.10), and in X-axis rotation (p=0.030) from 0.79° (SD=0.43) to 0.47° (SD=0.47). By considering cutoff points of 1 mm in translational and 1° in rotational directions, the Shim mask was significantly more accurate in the lateral direction (p=0.004). Moreover, while 70% of patients in the standard group required repeat CBCT scans, none in the Shim group did, resulting in an average time saving of 10.4 minutes per patient. Conclusion The Shim mask with mouth bite offers enhanced immobilization accuracy in SRT/SRS treatments, leading to time and potential cost savings by reducing the need for repeat CBCT scans. This underscores the importance of adopting innovative immobilization techniques to optimize patient outcomes.
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.