ArticleBMC cancer2025
Analysis of setup error and setup efficiency in SBRT for non-small cell lung cancer via a surface-guided radiation therapy system.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Scaling Surface-Guided Radiation Therapy to Larger Lung Cancer Cohorts: Frameless Immobilization and Enhanced Setup Accuracy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated setup error and efficiency in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), comparing surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) combined with a laser alignment system versus laser alignment alone, to assess the clinical value of the SGRT-assisted setup method in SBRT for NSCLC.
methodsA total of 80 patients with NSCLC were divided into an experimental group and a control group according to the treatment setup method. In the experimental group, an integrated fixation platform, vacuum cushions, and a cervicothoracic thermoplastic mask were used for immobilization, and a SGRT system and laser alignment system were used for setup. In the control group, the same immobilization devices were used, but only a laser alignment system was used for setup. All patients underwent pretreatment cone‒beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. The CBCT images were registered to planning computed tomography (CT) images using grayscale registration. Translational setup errors in the left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions and rotational errors in the pitch, roll, and rotation directions were recorded. The setup time was also recorded and compared between the groups.
resultsSignificant differences in the overall mean setup error in all six degrees of freedom were observed between the experimental and control groups (P ≤ 0.001). Within the experimental group, the overall mean setup error differed significantly between the LR and SI directions (P = 0.006). Within the control group, significant differences were found between the SI and AP directions (P < 0.001), as well as between pitch and rotation (P = 0.001) and between roll and rotation (P < 0.001). The overall mean setup time also significantly differed between the two groups (P < 0.001).
conclusionCompared with the conventional laser-guided setup method, the combination of SGRT and a laser alignment system significantly reduced setup error and shortened the setup time in SBRT for NSCLC. This approach improves setup accuracy and treatment workflow efficiency, demonstrating clinical feasibility and potential for clinical application.
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.