ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Improvement in positional accuracy with integrated surface- and X-ray imaging for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery patients.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) requires high positional accuracy to safely deliver large doses. This study evaluated an integrated surface- and image-guided radiotherapy (SGRT-IGRT) system by analysing (1) the agreement between thermo-optical and stereoscopic X-ray positioning, and (2) the impact of intra-fractional workflows on treatment accuracy and time. Materials and methods: Data from 126 SRS patients treated with 30 Gy/3 fractions (n = 116) or 12 Gy/1 fraction (n = 10) on a Varian Truebeam STx were retrospectively analysed. Patients were positioned and monitored with Brainlab ExacTrac Dynamic, with 0.5 mm/0.5° tolerances for IGRT and 1 mm/1° for SGRT. Three workflows were investigated: (A) Results: Median beam-on times were 5.5 min for workflow A, 5.0 min for workflow B, and 3.2 min for workflow C. The median differences between thermo-optical and stereoscopic X-ray patient positioning were ≤0.1 mm. The 3D positioning uncertainty remained within 0.5 mm (2.5th-97.5th percentile) using SGRT-IGRT. Omitting inter-arc imaging increased positional deviation ranges from 0.1-0.5 mm to 0.1-0.7 mm. Conclusion: Thermo-optical and stereoscopic X-ray imaging showed good agreement within the set institutional tolerances. Inter-arc imaging increased treatment time by 2 min compared with SGRT alone but improved positioning accuracy. Intra-arc imaging added an additional small accuracy benefit at minor time cost.
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.