↓ Skip to main content

Comparative analysis of thermoplastic masks versus vacuum cushions in stereotactic body radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative analysis of thermoplastic masks versus vacuum cushions in stereotactic body radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0484-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arturo Navarro-Martin, Jon Cacicedo, Olwen Leaman, Ismael Sancho, Elvira García, Valentin Navarro, Ferran Guedea

Abstract

To compare thermoplastic masks (TMP) and vacuum cushion system (VCS) to assess differences in interfraction set up accuracy in patients treated with stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastatic lung cancer. Secondarily, to survey radiotherapy technologists to assess their satisfaction with the two systems. Retrospective study of patients treated with lung SBRT between 2008 to 2012 at our institution. Immobilization was performed for 73 treatment sessions (VCS = 40; TMP = 33). A total of 246 cone-beams were analysed. Patients considered ineligible for surgery with a life expectancy ≥6 months and performance status > 1 were included. Target lesion location was verified by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) prior to each session, with displacements assessed by CBCT simulation prior to each treatment session. Couch shifts were registered prospectively in vertical, longitudinal, and latero-lateral directions to obtain Kernel coordinates (3D representation). Technologists were surveyed to assess their satisfaction with indexing, positioning, and learning curve of the two systems. Setup displacements were obtained in all patients for each treatment plan and for each session. To assess differences between the immobilization systems, a t-test (Welch) was performed. Mean displacements for the TMP and VC systems, respectively, were as follows: session one, 0.64 cm vs 1.05 cm (p = 0.0002); session two, 0.49 cm vs 1.02 cm (p < 0.0001), and session three, 0.56 vs 0.97 cm (p = 0.0011). TMP resulted in significantly smaller shifts vs. VCS in all three treatment sessions. Technologists rated the learning curve, set up, and positioning more highly for TMP versus VCS. Due to the high doses and steep gradients in lung SBRT, accurate and reproducible inter-fraction set up is essential. We found that thermoplastic masks offers better reproducibility with significantly less interfractional set up displacement than vacuum cushions. Moreover, radiotherapy technologists rated the TMP system higher. Taken together, these two findings suggest that TMP may be preferable to VCS. However, more research is needed to determine both inter- and intrafraction error to identify the optimal immobilisation system for use in lung SBRT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 34%
Physics and Astronomy 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,663,089
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#114
of 2,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,674
of 266,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#3
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,062 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.