ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Accuracy of surface-guided radiotherapy-based positioning and surface tracking in breast radiotherapy using a thermo-optical camera system.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2026. 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
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT)-based positioning and surface tracking in breast radiotherapy using the ExacTrac Dynamic (ETD). We retrospectively evaluated 16 patients who underwent breast cancer treatment. All patients were positioned using SGRT with ETD under free-breathing conditions. Orthogonal kilovoltage (kV) image acquisition was then acquired using the linear accelerators' kV imagers and registered to digitally reconstructed radiographs. For surface tracking, vertical breast surface motion waveforms obtained with ETD were compared with those captured using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) during beam delivery. The agreement between ETD and EPID in terms of vertical breast surface displacement was evaluated using the cross-correlation coefficient. For patient positioning, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of X-ray shift values (mm) were - 2.8 ± 2.6 (vertical), - 2.2 ± 4.5 (longitudinal), and 0.3 ± 2.1(lateral). The percentage of X-ray shift < 5 mm was 82% (vertical), 66% (longitudinal), and 92% (lateral). The setup margins (mm) were 5.4 (vertical), 9.0 (longitudinal), and 3.8 (lateral). For surface tracking, the mean ± SD of the cross-correlation coefficient was 0.93 ± 0.02, indicating a high correlation between the ETD and EPID waveforms. The mean amplitude difference between waveforms obtained by ETD and EPID was 0.46 mm. SGRT-based positioning with ETD may result in errors exceeding 5 mm relative to the treatment planning position in the longitudinal direction; combining it with image-guided radiotherapy is therefore recommended. Surface tracking with ETD demonstrated high tracking accuracy in tracking human body surface temperature distribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41023475What 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.