A randomized controlled trial comparing customized versus standard headrests for head and neck radiotherapy immobilization in terms of set-up errors, patient comfort and staff satisfaction (ICORG 08-09)

Howlin, Claire; O'Shea, E.; Dunne, Mary; Mullaney, L.; McGarry, M.; Clayton-Lea, A.; Finn, Marie; Carter, P.; Garret, B.; Thirion, P.

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2014.07.009

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the contrary, in the study of Howlin et al, the difference in set-up errors between patients with customized and standard head supports was not significant in any direction. 6 Furthermore, our calculations of the estimated margins from CTV to PTV were also comparable to those reported in the literature. Humphreys et al used a customized immobilization system: the estimated margins in lateral, longitudinal and vertical directions were 2.9, 2.6 and 3.3 mm, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…7 The sample size of 350 measurements per time period was calculated with the G*Power software, considering a = 0.05, b = 0.8 and the effect size of 0.267, which was calculated on the basis of averages and standard deviations of similar studies. 1,2,6,8 For comparison with published studies, the clinical target volume (CTV) -planning target volume (PTV) safety margin was calculated according to the formula proposed by Van Herk. , 9 The differences at p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of set-up errors in the radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer: standard vs. individual head support

Androjna

Marciuš

Peterlin

et al. 2020

Radiology and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractBackgroundThe aim of the study was to (a) compare the accuracy of two different immobilization strategies for patients with head and neck tumors, and (b) compare the set-up errors on treatment units with different portal imaging systems.Patients and methodsVariations in the position of the isocenter (IC) relative to the reference point determined on the computed tomography simulator were measured in a vertical (anterior-posterior), longitudinal (superior-inferior), and lateral (medial-lateral) direction in 120 head and neck cancer patients irradiated with curative intent. Depending on the treatment unit (unit A - 2D/2D image previews; unit B- 2D image previews) and the time of irradiation, patients were divided into 6 groups of 20 patients. In patients irradiated in 2014, standard head supports were used (groups 1 and 2), whereas in those treated in 2015 and 2017 (groups 3–6) individual head supports were employed. The clinical-to-planning target volume safety margin was calculated according to the formula proposed by Van Herk.ResultsIn total, 2,454 portal images and 3,681 set-up errors were analysed. Implementation of individual head supports in 2015 resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the average inter-fraction displacement in the vertical direction and in decreased number of IC displacements in the vertical and longitudinal direction (applies to both treatment units). The largest reduction of the safety margin was calculated in the longitudinal direction and the safety margins were larger for unit B than for unit A.ConclusionsThe use of individual head supports and a more advanced imaging system were found to increase set-up precision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of set-up errors in the radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer: standard vs. individual head support

Androjna

Marciuš

Peterlin

et al. 2020

Radiology and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The systematic error is the deviation between the simulated or planned patient position and the average patient position. This deviation occurs in the same direction and is of a similar magnitude for each fraction throughout the treatment course [8]. Systematic error may occur at localization, planning or treatment delivery.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 87%

A comparative evaluation of two head and neck immobilization devices using verification film for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy at Ocean Road Cancer Institute (ORCI) aero-digestive tract

Dharsee¹

2018

Int J Radiol Radiat Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in the available literature there are not many studies which have examined the level of comfort related to the immobilization used. Most of the studies evaluated the level of pain in the postoperative recovery using visual analogue (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS) or by assessing comfort theory and validity [9,10,12]. Thus, Howlin et al [12] assessed the level of comfort of head restraints and thermoplastic masks during radiotherapy only by VAS scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of comfort level in patients with immobilization

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. In our modern "high-tech""society, comfort of the patient is often forgotten because the practice is usually performed according to the bio-medical model and focused only on solving the physical problems of the patient rather than on a holistic approach. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the comfort level of patients hospitalized with the immobilization. Material and Methods. The study was conducted as an observational, analytical cross-sectional study by interviewing 124 patients hospitalized at the Clinical Centre of Vojvodina. Comfort Immobilization Questionnaire with 20 individual statements that describe the current good or bad condition of the patient was used as an instrument of research. Descriptive and inferential statistics methods were applied for statistical data processing and statistical significance was determined at p < 0.05. Results. The immobilized orthopedic patients reported a high level of comfort in the socio-cultural and spiritual context, which was, however, insufficient in the physical context and the immediate environment context. A low level of comfort was reported by the patients between the ages of 36 and 59 years and the patients with immobilization of the upper extremities. Comfort level was conditioned by the intensity of pain and applied analgesic therapy rather than the duration of applied immobilization. Conclusion. The results of this study indicate that the patients' comfort level is significantly affected by modifying factors such as hospital facilities as well as the type of immobilization and their age. Comfort Immobilization Questionnaire has proven to be a simple and reliable questionnaire for testing the patients comfort level in different contexts.

show abstract

A randomized controlled trial comparing customized versus standard headrests for head and neck radiotherapy immobilization in terms of set-up errors, patient comfort and staff satisfaction (ICORG 08-09)

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Assessment of set-up errors in the radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer: standard vs. individual head support

Assessment of set-up errors in the radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer: standard vs. individual head support

A comparative evaluation of two head and neck immobilization devices using verification film for head and neck cancer patients receiving radiation therapy at Ocean Road Cancer Institute (ORCI) aero-digestive tract

Evaluation of comfort level in patients with immobilization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About