ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Setup Error Differences and Margin Expansion Among Rectal Cancer Segments: Consistency Evaluation Between EPID and iSCOUT.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the differences in setup errors among patients with rectal cancer in the upper, middle and lower segments and evaluate the consistency between electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and iSCOUT image-guided techniques.
methodsWe retrospectively included 277 patients with rectal cancer treated with radiotherapy at our center between January 2020 and June 2025 and divided them into upper (n = 23), middle (n = 115) and lower (n = 139) rectal cancer groups based on their pathological results. Setup errors and corresponding planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated and compared across groups and between EPID and iSCOUT, with correlation and agreement between the two image-guidance methods further evaluated.
resultsThe required external margins (cm) in the left-right (LR, X), superior-inferior (SI, Y) and anterior-posterior (AP, Z) directions for patients with upper, middle and lower rectal cancers were (0.44, 0.83, 0.57), (0.50, 0.69, 0.59) and (0.43, 0.68, 0.53), respectively. The setup errors between the upper and lower rectal cancers in the Z direction (p = 0.013) were significantly different. The X and Y directions between the EPID and iSCOUT groups in the different segments of rectal cancer were significantly different. The registration results of the EPID in the X, Y and Z directions significantly correlated with the corresponding iSCOUT error data (p < 0.001). The 95% consistency limits of EPID and iSCOUT measurement results in the X, Y and Z were -3.65 to 4.38, -3.69 to 4.21 and -3.66 to 3.57 mm, respectively.
conclusionIn the Y direction, different margin expansions should be adopted based on the different rectal cancer treatment segments. The iSCOUT guidance technology can replace the EPID when necessary.
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.