ArticleJournal of radiation research2026
A national survey of the clinical practice of surface-guided radiation therapy in Japan.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diffusion of surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT), implementation of quality control and quality assurance strategies, established clinical workflows and user perceptions regarding the benefits and limitations of SGRT in routine practice. From October to December 2024, we surveyed 880 radiotherapy institutions in Japan regarding institutional characteristics, quality assurance/quality control, computed tomography simulation, treatment procedures and general questions regarding SGRT. The survey was distributed via mailing list and through vendors, and administered via Google Forms. A total of 292 institutions responded, corresponding to a response rate of 33%. Ninety-eight institutions reported introducing SGRT, and 50 institutions had introduced it after 2022. The highest usage rate of SGRT in breast treatment was 87%. Approximately half of the institutions performed daily checks of SGRT and radiation isocenter coincidence, as well as static accuracy, whereas 6% did not perform these checks at all. The primary functions of the SGRT system were patient positioning (94%), respiratory management (78%), patient monitoring (76%) and skin marker-less techniques (69%). Many institutions reduced or eliminated skin marking, citing simplified workflows and reduced setup time. Many respondents observed that SGRT implementation reduced both setup and treatment times for breast/chest, abdomen/pelvis and extremity procedures. SGRT has been widely embraced in Japan, offering notable clinical and workflow benefits. However, because participation in this survey was voluntary, the results may overrepresent institutions with greater awareness or adoption of SGRT. Greater standardization, broader insurance coverage and ongoing technological advancements are essential to fully realize its advantages.
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.