ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Workflow evaluation of surface-guided initial patient set-up in radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: The desire to avoid tattooing radiotherapy patients lead us to implement surface-guided initial patient set-up (SGRT). To validate SGRT we investigated setup precision, user attitude, and impact on radiotherapy technician (RTT) workflow. Materials and methods: During a six-month period, initial setup was investigated on six linear accelerators (Truebeam, Varian), each equipped with a thermo-optical surface camera (ExacTrac Dynamic, Brainlab). Precision was assessed by comparing couch shifts based on x-ray imaging acquired after initial setup and number of x-ray imaging procedures for each fraction to data from the prior year, using a tattoo-based setup. The data was split into subgroups (thoracic, abdominal/pelvic, palliative and miscellaneous (gastrointestinal, head and neck, cranial and extremities)). User attitude and impact on RTT workflow was assessed qualitatively by questionnaire. RTTs were asked to rate how SGRT compared to tattoo-based setup and record the need for manual adjustments of the patient (e.g. pushing, lifting or pulling). Questionnaires were repeated 1.5 years after implementation. Results: We included 460 patients setup with SGRT, and 468 patients with tattoo-based methods. Median couch shifts and repeated imaging were comparable overall (0.6 cm and 9 % respectively for both setup methods), SGRT performed better for the thoracic and miscellaneous sites subgroups. RTTs preferred SGRT to laser and tattoo initial setup for >90 % of fractions. Manual adjustments were reduced with SGRT (15 % of fractions) compared to tattoo-based (60 % of fractions). Conclusions: SGRT achieved the same or better precision as tattoo-based initial setup while providing a better workflow and reduced physical adjustments performed by the RTTs by 75 %.
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.