ArticlePloS one2025
Accuracy of day-to-day patient positioning in ocular proton therapy with a dedicated beamline.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the residual patient positioning error of ocular proton treatment based on daily setup X-ray images and tantalum clips. The residual day-to-day patient positioning accuracy in a cohort of 60 patients and 240 fractions was determined in two steps. The 3D tantalum clips' positions in the orthogonal X-ray images just prior to aperture placement were registered with 3D clips' positions derived from the reference data from treatment planning. The aperture, placed before irradiation, reduced the field of view in axial images blocking clips partially or completely in most cases. The clips' positions after aperture placement in the lateral images were compared with the reference clips' positions. Partially visible clips in the axial image were registered to the clips in the axial image prior to aperture placement. The day-to-day deviations to aperture placement were corrected with the registration results for translations only. The residual day-to-day patient position variations just prior to irradiation were -0.06 ± 0.27 mm (mean ± 1SD) for the left-right direction, -0.01 ± 0.23 mm for the anterior-posterior direction and -0.01 ± 0.19 mm for the superior-inferior direction. This data was further investigated by differentiating for treated eye, gazing eye and the use of eyelid retractor. This yielded no significant differences. The residual patient positioning errors are small for patients treated at the dedicated eyeline, indicating that the patient positioning workflow using tantalum clips is highly accurate. The reported errors can be used for ocular proton margin calculations and for the evaluation of a clipless ocular proton therapy workflow.
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.