ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Setup Errors Using Planar Imaging and Cone Beam Computed Tomography: Feasibility of Asymmetric Planning Margins.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Accurate patient positioning in radiotherapy is critical to ensure adequate dose delivery to tumors and minimize radiation dose to normal tissues. Two image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) techniques, planar and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), are commonly used to measure patient setup deviations. Objective This study aims to compare the mean setup errors between planar and CBCT procedures in various irradiated areas, across the three orthogonal axes and at different times of day (morning-afternoon), and to evaluate whether the use of asymmetric planning margins between CTV and PTV is statistically justified. Methods A total of 178 patients, irradiated in four anatomical sites, were enrolled in the study. They were irradiated for prostate (n = 51, 28.6%), head and neck (n = 48, 27.0%), lung (n = 45, 25.3%), and metastatic brain tumors (n = 34, 19.1%). Each patient underwent both planar and CBCT imaging for the first three treatment days and every five days thereafter. Bone anatomy matching was carried out with both imaging techniques. Paired-samples t-tests, independent samples t-tests, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were used. The van Herk formula was employed to determine symmetric and asymmetric planning margins based on error distributions. Statistical significance was defined at α = 0.05 (5%). Results CBCT demonstrated statistically higher deviations than planar imaging in specific X-Y-Z axes and anatomical sites, namely, along the X-axis in the prostate, lung, and cranial regions and along Z-axis in the head and neck, lung, and cranial regions. Time of treatment did not affect our results. Statistically significant differences between positive and negative errors in some regions might support the use of asymmetric van Herk margins. Conclusion According to our study, CBCT is more sensitive in detecting setup deviations/errors compared to planar imaging in certain anatomical regions and dimensions. Asymmetric planning margins may increase treatment precision and reduce the irradiated volume of normal tissues, particularly in lung and cranial irradiation.
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.