↓ Skip to main content

Positional error in spine SBRT

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Positional error in spine SBRT
Published in
Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1111/1754-9485.12353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renee Finnigan, Brock Lamprecht, Tamara Barry, Kimberley Jones, Joshua Boyd, Andrew Pullar, Bryan Burmeister, Matthew Foote

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal tumours delivers high doses per fraction to targets in close proximity to neural tissue. With steep dose gradients, small changes in position can confer significant dosimetric impact on adjacent structures. We analysed positioning error in consecutively treated patients on a strict image-guidance protocol with online correction in 6 degrees of freedom (6-DOF). Set-up error, residual error post-correction and intra-fraction motion for 30 courses of spinal SBRT in 27 patients were assessed using cone-beam CT. Positional error was corrected in x, y and z translational planes and rotational axes using a robotic couch, applying 2 mm and 2° action levels. Linear mixed-effects model assessed whether positional error was influenced by factors such as vertebral level, immobilisation device and treatment duration. Sixty-two fractions were delivered with 225 image registrations. Median treatment duration was significantly longer for patients treated with static-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared with volumetric-modulated arc treatment - 40 min versus 28 min, respectively (P = 0.01). Across all fractions, the median residual positional error after initial correction was greatest in the x translational plane (0.5 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.6) and y rotational axis (0.25°; 95% CI 0.1-0.3). Median intra-fraction error was also greatest in the x-plane (0.7 mm; 95% CI 0.5-1.0) and y-axis (0.4°; 95% CI 0.2-0.5). With strict immobilisation, image-guidance and 6-DOF correction, our current practice of applying 3-mm planning margins for target volumes and critical structures appears safe. Lower image-guidance action thresholds plus verification with end-to-end testing would be recommended before further reducing margins.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 20 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology
#705
of 1,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,210
of 279,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,154 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.