↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of daily patient positioning for radiotherapy with a commercial 3D surface-imaging system (Catalyst™)

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Evaluation of daily patient positioning for radiotherapy with a commercial 3D surface-imaging system (Catalyst™)
Published in
Radiation Oncology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0728-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Walter, P. Freislederer, C. Belka, C. Heinz, M. Söhn, F. Roeder

Abstract

To report our initial clinical experience with the novel surface imaging system Catalyst™ (C-RAD AB, Sweden) in connection with an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator for daily patient positioning in patients undergoing radiation therapy. We retrospectively analyzed the patient positioning of 154 fractions in 25 patients applied to thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic body regions. Patients were routinely positioned based on skin marks, shifted to the calculated isocenter position and treated after correction via cone beam CT which served as gold standard. Prior to CBCT an additional surface scan by the Catalyst™ system was performed and compared to a reference surface image cropped from the planning CT to obtain shift vectors for an optimal surface match. These shift vectors were subtracted from the vectors obtained by CBCT correction to assess the theoretical setup error that would have occurred if the patients had been positioned using solely the Catalyst™ system. The mean theoretical set up-error and its standard deviation were calculated for all measured fractions and the results were compared to patient positioning based on skin marks only. Integration of the surface scan into the clinical workflow did not result in a significant time delay. Regarding the entire group, the mean setup error by using skin marks only was 0.0 ± 2.1 mm in lateral, -0.4 ± 2.4 mm in longitudinal, and 1.1 ± 2.6 mm vertical direction. The mean theoretical setup error that would have occurred using solely the Catalyst™ was -0.1 ± 2.1 mm laterally, -1.8 ± 5.4 mm longitudinally, and 1.4 ± 3.2 mm vertically. No significant difference was found in any direction. For thoracic targets the mean setup error based on the Catalyst™ was 0.6 ± 2.6 mm laterally, -5.0 ± 7.9 mm longitudinally, and 0.5 ± 3.2 mm vertically. For abdominal targets, the mean setup error was 0.3 ± 2.2 mm laterally, 2.6 ± 1.8 mm longitudinally, and 2.1 ± 5.5 mm vertically. For pelvic targets, the setup error was -0.9 ± 1.5 mm laterally, -1.7 ± 2.8 mm longitudinally, and 1.6 ± 2.2 mm vertically. A significant difference between Catalyst™ and skin mark based positioning was only observed in longitudinal direction of pelvic targets. Optical surface scanning using Catalyst™ seems potentially useful for daily positioning at least to complement usual imaging modalities in most patients with acceptable accuracy, although a significant improvement compared to skin mark based positioning could not be derived from the evaluated data. However, this effect seemed to be rather caused by the unexpected high accuracy of skin mark based positioning than by inaccuracy using the Catalyst™. Further on, surface registration in longitudinal axis seemed less reliable especially in pelvic localization. Therefore further prospective evaluation based on strictly predefined protocols is needed to determine the optimal scanning approaches and parameters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Master 8 18%
Unspecified 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Physics and Astronomy 9 20%
Unspecified 8 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 18%
Computer Science 3 7%
Other 5 11%

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 25 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,655,343
of 8,683,790 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#557
of 1,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,715
of 298,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,683,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 298,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.