ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Accuracy and workflow efficiency of surface-guided open-face vs. closed-face masks in SRT/SRS for brain metastases.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Open-face masks (OFMs) provide comparable immobilization or superior accuracy with greater patient comfort than closed-face masks (CFMs), but their impact on workflow efficiency in stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases remains unclear. This study compared immobilization accuracy, setup-related interruptions, and workflow efficiency of OFM with surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) versus CFM. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 180 consecutive SRT/SRS courses for brain metastases (March 2020-February 2024) using OFM/SGRT or CFM. Setup accuracy, repeat imaging, repositioning, and session duration were extracted from treatment and CBCT records. Translational and rotational errors were compared using Mann-Whitney U-tests; session times with t-tests. Results: OFM/SGRT achieved smaller mean x- (1.1 ± 1.0 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1 mm) and z-axis displacements (0.7 ± 0.7 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1 mm) but slightly larger y-axis displacement (2.0 ± 1.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4 mm; all p < 0.01). Rotational stability was superior (pitch 0.10° vs. 0.74°, yaw 0.64° vs. 1.10°, roll 0.57° vs. 0.74°; all p < 0.01). Setup-related issues were fewer with OFM/SGRT (2 vs. 7), while patient (5 vs. 3) and technical (2 vs. 1) issues were slightly higher. Mean session times were similar for initial (21.88 vs. 21.87 min; p = 0.98) and subsequent fractions (16.92 vs. 16.74 min; p = 0.47). Conclusions: OFM combined with SGRT provides improved rotational stability and comparable translational setup accuracy overall compared with CFMs in SRT/SRS, despite inferior longitudinal (y-axis) accuracy. OFM/SGRT was associated with fewer setup-related deviations during initial positioning. While overall session durations were comparable between workflows, reduced setup-related interruptions were observed with OFM/SGRT. These findings support OFM/SGRT as a clinically viable and patient-friendly alternative to conventional CFMs in SRT/SRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.