Cited by 74Advanced Radiotherapy TechniquesHead and Neck Cancer StudiesRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized trial on two types of thermoplastic masks for patient immobilization during radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer

Sharp, Lena, Lewin, Freddi, Johansson, Hemming, Payne, David, Gerhardsson, Ansi, Rutqvist, Lars Erik·2005·International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract

Purpose Radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer requires a reliable immobilization for an accurate and consistent treatment setup. This prospective, randomized study was done to compare two types of Posicast thermoplastic face masks, in terms of reproducibility, patient comfort, tolerability, and skin damage.Methods and materials The patients were randomly assigned to use a head mask (HM) or a head-and-shoulder mask (HSM). Three-dimensional treatment planning was followed by fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing port films with simulator films twice during treatment and by comparing actual treatment table positions weekly. Patient tolerability and comfort were studied weekly. The radiation-induced skin damage was assessed every week according to the World Health Organization toxicity scale.Results A total of 260 patients were included, and 241 (93%) were evaluated. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups (HM or HSM) in terms of reproducibility. Patients using HSM experienced significantly more claustrophobia (p = 0.023). Patients allocated to HSM receiving > or = 60 Gy were found to have more skin reactions.Conclusions The smaller HM reduced feelings of claustrophobia, as well as skin reactions, for patients receiving > or = 60 Gy. The smaller mask did not compromise the reproducibility of the setup.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.04.047

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 74

Metadata

Authors
Sharp, L., Lewin, F., Johansson, H., Payne, D., Gerhardsson, A., & Rutqvist, L. E.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (CA)
  • Ministry of the Environment (SE)
Corresponding author
Sharp, Lena
Venue
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-01
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
250-256
ISSN
0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994871318
Cited by
74
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Radiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Keywords
head and neck cancer, patient immobilization, radiation dermatitis, claustrophobia, patient comfort, external beam radiotherapy, fractionated radiotherapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Equipment Design, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Immobilization, Male, Masks, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review