ArticleJournal of medical physics
Clinical Implementation and Accuracy Evaluation of a Novel Intrafraction Cone-beam Computed Tomography Technique for Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical implementation and setup accuracy of real-time intrafraction cone-beam computed tomography imaging during stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: Ten patients treated with intracranial SRS/SRT were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were immobilized using the Fraxion stereotactic head system and treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on a linear accelerator (Elekta Versa HD). A custom intrafraction cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) preset was developed in X-ray volume imaging to acquire kV projections during each VMAT arc. Translational (X, Y, and Z) and rotational (pitch, roll, and yaw) errors were calculated by registering intrafraction CBCT to the planning CT using a 6D match and mean values were compared with SRS tolerance thresholds (0.5 mm and 1°). Results: The mean intrafraction translational errors were 0.4 mm (lateral), 0.3 mm (longitudinal), and 0.4 mm (vertical), while rotational errors were 0.3° in (pitch), 0.3° in (roll), and 0.4° in (yaw), all within SRS tolerances. Real-time intrafraction CBCT provided clinically acceptable volumetric images with minimal scatter, enabled continuous motion monitoring during VMAT delivery, eliminated additional CBCT scans and couch adjustments, and reduced treatment time by approximately 3-5 min per arc. Conclusion: Real-time intrafraction CBCT imaging enables highly accurate, efficient, and reproducible setup verification during SRS/SRT. The workflow maintains sub-millimeter precision, reduces treatment duration, and enhances clinical confidence in dose delivery. This approach represents a significant advancement in stereotactic image-guided radiation therapy and warrants the evaluation for extracranial SBRT applications.
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.