↓ Skip to main content

Positioning reproducibility with and without rotational corrections for 2 head and neck immobilization systems

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
25 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.
Article details
Title
Positioning reproducibility with and without rotational corrections for 2 head and neck immobilization systems
Published in
Practical Radiation Oncology, July 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.prro.2015.05.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of offline rotational corrections and assess intrafraction motion for head and neck (H&N) cancer patients immobilized with and without a custom neck cushion. Fifty H&N cancer patients were immobilized and imaged with pretreatment and posttreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for each treatment fraction. Of these patients, 25 had a custom neck cushion added to their immobilization. Each CBCT was registered to the simulation computed tomography offline. Registrations were performed with automatching tools and a matching volume of interest that consisted of a 5-mm expansion around the mandible, occipital bone, C1/C2, and C7/T1. To determine positioning accuracy, the registration was inspected to confirm these bony anatomy structures were contained within a 3- or 5-mm expansion of the simulation position. If not, the registration was repeated with rotational corrections included and re-evaluated. For each fraction, intrafraction motion was also quantified through the difference between the pretreatment and posttreatment CBCT registration coordinates. For translational registrations, the bony anatomy in pretreatment imaging was outside the 3-mm or 5-mm expansion structure, respectively, for 49% and 15% of fractions on average for patients without a custom headrest and for 48% and 13% of fractions on average for patients with a custom headrest. The addition of rotational corrections reduced these numbers to 21% and 4% and to 28% and 6%, respectively. Intrafraction motion was significantly lower for patients immobilized with the addition of a custom neck cushion: 1.0 ± 0.5 mm compared with 1.8 ± 1.6 mm for patients with the standard headrest only (P = .02). This was reflected in posttreatment positioning accuracy, which was significantly reduced in the case of the standard headrest compared with pretreatment imaging (P values of < .001 to .048). Rotational corrections significantly improved pretreatment patient positioning accuracy (P < .001). Intrafraction motion was reduced significantly through the addition of a custom neck cushion and resulted in an increase in posttreatment positioning accuracy for these patients.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Physics and Astronomy 3 12%
Engineering 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Practical Radiation Oncology
#700
of 1,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,362
of 277,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Practical Radiation Oncology
#15
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 277,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.