ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026
Evaluation of a novel abdominal compression airbag for respiratory motion management and setup reproducibility in upper abdominal radiotherapy.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and efficacy of a novel abdominal compression airbag (ACA) for respiratory motion management and setup reproducibility in upper abdominal radiotherapy and to compare its performance against free breathing (FB) and the standard abdominal compression plate (ACP).
methodsA total of 54 patients with upper abdominal malignancies were retrospectively analyzed in three groups based on the FB, ACP, and ACA motion management strategies. Respiratory motion amplitude was quantified by calculating the displacement of the liver centroid between the 0% and 50% phases of four-dimensional CT scans. Interfractional setup reproducibility was assessed by analyzing setup errors derived from pretreatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans. Statistical comparisons for the respiratory motion amplitude were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's post-hoc test. The analysis of setup stability utilized a linear mixed-effects model.
resultsBoth ACP and ACA significantly attenuated respiratory motion compared to FB (p < 0.001). The mean vectorial motion amplitudes were 0.88 ± 0.20 cm, 0.61 ± 0.24 cm, and 0.57 ± 0.19 cm for the FB, ACP, and ACA groups, respectively. No significant difference in motion restriction was found between ACA and ACP. In terms of setup reproducibility, the ACA group demonstrated superior stability in the anterior-posterior direction, with the lowest mean absolute error (0.15 ± 0.11 cm), but exhibited larger errors in the left-right direction (0.32 ± 0.22 cm) compared to both FB (0.18 ± 0.15 cm) and ACP (0.19 ± 0.15 cm).
conclusionThe ACA achieved a motion restriction performance comparable to the standard ACP, but it was associated with increased uncertainty in the left-right direction. The ACA could serve as a practical alternative with potential workflow and compatibility advantages, preferably coupled with robust image-guided verification to maintain setup stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42496752What 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.