ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2025
Evaluation of Interfractional Setup Uncertainties and Calculation of Adequate CTV-PTV Margin for Head and Neck Radiotherapy using Electronic Portal Imaging Device.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Dose Distribution at the Level of Electronic Portal Imaging Device using Treatment Planning System.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The evaluation of treatment-associated errors is important in the radiotherapy process, particularly those resulting related to patient setup. Objective: This research aimed to assess the interfractional setup errors and determine the Clinical Target Volume to Planning Target Volume (CTV to PTV) margin in patients undergoing 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) for head and neck cancer by means of electronic portal imaging device. Material and Methods: In this analytical study, 300 portal images were acquired from 50 patients undergoing 3DCRT for head and neck cancer. Using the portal images of Lateral (LAT) and Antero-Posterior (AP) fields, population systematic (∑) and random (σ) errors were obtained in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions. Finally, based on the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 62's, Stroom's and Van Herk's methods, Planning target volume margins were determined. Results: The translational shift ranges were 0-8.1 mm in the ML, 0-9 mm in the SI (AP), 0-8.8 mm in the SI (LAT), and 0-10 mm in the AP directions. The population systematic and random errors were respectively 3.230, 2.753, and 2.997 mm, and 1.476, 1.853, and 1.715 mm in X, Y, and Z directions. The calculated PTV margins using the ICRU-62, Stroom's, and Van Herk's formulae were ranging from 3.236-3.551, 6.605-7.493, and 7.932-9.108 mm, respectively. Conclusion: A PTV margin of 7.5-9.5 mm seems safe for ensuring adequate treatment volume coverage. In addition, the EPID is an effective equipment for verifying patient positioning and reducing treatment setup errors.
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.