Trial reportRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Effectiveness of personalized open-face mask combined with styrofoam fixation in radiotherapy treatment of head and neck cancers: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Prospective randomized-controlled trial: efficacy of 37 °C-preheated thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) bolus in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer patients.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Trial
- Maskless head and neck radiotherapy using surface-guided radiation therapy: initial clinical feasibility of real-time setup, intrafraction monitoring, and automatic beam-hold.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Accuracy and workflow efficiency of surface-guided open-face vs. closed-face masks in SRT/SRS for brain metastases.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe primary aim of this investigation is to assess the effectiveness of implementing an innovative immobilization approach, spec ically the utilization of personalized open-face masks in combination with styrofoam fixation, for head and neck cancers receiving radiotherapy. The study seeks to evaluate the influence of this method on improving patients' precision in positioning and their overall comfort during the treatment process, in addition to exploring its potential capacity to mitigate the occurrence of anxiety and depression in this patient population.
methodsA prospective, randomized controlled trial was undertaken to investigate the comparative efficacy of two immobilization approaches for the radiotherapy treatment of head and neck cancers. The experimental group was randomly assigned to receive fixation using personalized open-face masks with nose and mouth apertures, while the control group was immobilized using closed-face masks. Weekly cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were conducted pre-treatment to assess and record setup errors along three axes. Comparative analysis of setup errors and the planning target volume (PTV) margin between the two groups was performed. Furthermore, the patients' comfort levels and anxiety and depression status were evaluated using the modified Likert questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).
resultsA total of 106 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 53) or the control group (n = 53). There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of age, sex, and disease type indicating comparability. Analysis of the setup errors along different directions showed no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in the X direction (0.90 ± 0.84 mm vs. 0.92 ± 0.85 mm, p = 0.825), Y direction (1.26 ± 0.98 mm vs. 1.37 ± 1.09 mm, p = 0.172), Z direction (1.18 ± 0.84 mm vs. 1.15 ± 0.98 mm, p = 0.651), and Rtn direction (0.65 ± 0.57 vs. 0.62 ± 0.55, p = 0.489). Evaluating the local setup errors in the experimental and control groups, there were no significant differences observed in the X direction (1.13 ± 1.15 mm vs. 1.01 ± 0.89 mm, p = 0.152) and Z direction (1.31 ± 0.88 mm vs. 1.26 ± 1.17 mm, p = 0.549). However, a significant difference was found in the Y direction (1.49 ± 1.19 mm vs. 1.80 ± 1.45 mm, p = 0.003). The Rtn direction also did not show a significant difference (0.90 ± 0.81 vs. 0.84 ± 0.73, p = 0.328). The PTV margin in the X, Y, and Z directions were determined as 2.20 mm, 3.12 mm, and 2.57 mm in the experimental group and 2.35 mm, 3.58 mm, and 2.86 mm in the control group, respectively. The personalized open-face mask patients reported higher levels of comfort compared to the perforated head, neck, and shoulder thermoplastic mask (31.32 ± 1.16 vs. 30.00 ± 1.49, p < 0.001). The prevalence rates of anxiety in the experimental and control groups were as follows: (18.8% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.399), (18.8% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.584), (23.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.856), and (23.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.283).
conclusionsIn head and neck cancer radiotherapy, we propose the idea of personalized open-face mask combined with styrofoam for the first time, which can improve patient comfort without sacrificing positioning accuracy, and has a tendency to relieve patients' tension and anxiety. It is worth promoting and using in clinical positioning.
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.