ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Comparison of Six- and Three-Dimensional Error Corrections for the Planning Target Volume in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Cancer.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 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
Abstract
introductionDuring radiation therapy, patients may experience positioning errors that can affect the irradiated volume and result in unnecessary radiation doses to normal tissues. Correcting for setup errors is essential for patients undergoing radiation therapy; however, it remains unclear whether six-dimensional (6D) correction is superior to conventional three-dimensional (3D) correction in nasopharyngeal cancer. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the planning target volume (PTV) coverage between 3D and 6D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) corrections for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 30 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer who underwent image-guided radiation therapy. The 3D and 6D corrections were performed using CBCT images registered to CT simulation images based on skeletal structures at 1, 3, and 5 weeks, respectively. The volume percentages of the PTV achieving the prescribed dose of 70, 63, and 56 Gy were calculated after both 3D and 6D corrections and were statistically compared using a repeated measures analysis of variance test.
resultsThe results showed that the percentage coverage of the target volume was 94.1% ± 4.3% and 95.4% ± 3.4% for 70 Gy, 94.4% ± 2.6% and 95.3% ± 2.4% for 63 Gy, and 92.1% ± 7.7% and 95.6% ± 5.4% for 56 Gy after 3D and 6D corrections, respectively. A significant difference was noted in the volume coverage for 56 Gy between the two correction methods. Additionally, the average maximum dose percentages after 3D and 6D corrections were 5.9% ± 8.0% and 3.3% ± 6.2% for the spinal cord, and 1.8% ± 8.5% and 2.7% ± 6.0% for the brain stem, respectively; however, no significant difference was observed between the two correction methods.
conclusionWe conclude that 6D correction for CBCT images achieved better dose coverage of the target tumour volume than 3D correction in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
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.