ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Multiregional assessment of surface guidance for patient positioning in radiotherapy.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate and reproducible patient positioning is critical in external beam radiotherapy to ensure optimal target coverage while sparing surrounding healthy tissue. This retrospective single-institution study compared surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) using the Catalyst™ HD system with conventional skin-marker (SKM) alignment in thoracic and pelvic treatments. Sixty patients (20 thoracic, 40 pelvic) and 1,105 treatment fractions were analyzed. Thoracic patients received both SGRT and SKM workflows sequentially, enabling paired analysis; pelvic patients were treated using either SGRT or SKM exclusively. Translational 3D offsets, verified by image guidance, were quantified from couch shift data, and setup precision was evaluated using descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and linear mixed-effects models. In thoracic treatments, SGRT reduced mean 3D offsets from 0.91 cm to 0.42 cm (52 % reduction) and variance from 0.54 cm
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.