ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Patient and staff perspective toward marker-less patient setup accuracy in breast radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. 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.
- Patient and staff perspective toward marker-less patient setup accuracy in breast radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study comprised two cohorts. The first assessed patient and radiation therapist (RTT) perspectives on temporary ink skin markings. The second evaluated whether integrating a six-degree-of-freedom (6D) couch could further improve setup accuracy, setup time, IGRT time, and total treatment time when used with marker-less or marker-based workflows.
methodsQuestionnaires were completed by 72 breast cancer patients and 29 radiation therapists (RTTs) using a 6-point Likert scale (0 = never to 5 = always). The questionnaire assessed emotional experiences related to temporary skin markings and the level of interest in a marker-less approach. Forty patients were assigned to four setup groups: markers without 6D couch (M), markers with 6D couch (M_6D), marker-less without 6D couch (ML), and marker-less with 6D couch (ML_6D). Setup accuracy, setup time, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) time, and total treatment time were compared.
resultsAbout 90% of both patients and RTTs preferred a marker-less setup. Marker-less techniques combined with 6D couch achieved comparable positioning accuracy to marker-based methods. Maximum mean setup deviations in the longitudinal axis were 3.3 ± 1.3 mm (M), 3.3 ± 1.5 mm (M_6D), 2.8 ± 1.3 mm (ML), and 3.0 ± 1.5 mm (ML_6D). No significant differences were found in setup or IGRT time. Marker-less setups reduced total treatment time by 27.8%.
conclusionMarker-less setups using SGRT are feasible for breast radiotherapy, providing comparable accuracy and reduced treatment times. Both patients and RTTs preferred this method over traditional marker-based approaches.
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.