Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Narrative review highlights improved positioning management strategies in head and neck radiotherapy, suggesting an action-oriented approach.
Accurate positioning remains a central challenge in head and neck radiotherapy because highly conformal dose distributions are delivered near multiple critical organs, and clinically relevant discrepancies may not be resolved by rigid image-guided correction alone. This narrative review synthesizes evidence on positioning management in head and neck radiotherapy, with particular emphasis on the transition from couch correction to action-oriented clinical decision-making. Peer-reviewed studies, guidelines, and key reviews published between January 2005 and April 2026 were identified using PubMed/MEDLINE and reference screening. Positioning uncertainty is often region-specific and dynamic, reflecting lower-neck and shoulder mismatch, mandibular variation, mask-fit deterioration, functional motion, and progressive anatomical changes during treatment. Thermoplastic immobilization, customized headrests, bite blocks, cone-beam computed tomography, six-degree-of-freedom correction, and adaptive workflows have improved reproducibility and verification; however, these approaches do not eliminate mismatches caused by non-rigid posture, immobilization failure, or evolving anatomy. In such situations, the key clinical task is to distinguish rigid setup deviations suitable for online correction from discrepancies requiring repositioning, re-immobilization, repeat simulation, or adaptive replanning. Emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, dose-of-the-day estimation, corrected CBCT, synthetic CT, rapid replanning, and workflow-integrated decision support, may help close the gap between mismatch detection and intervention selection. Positioning management should therefore evolve from a correction-centered model to an action-oriented framework that links observed geometric or anatomical change to the most appropriate clinical response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hirotaki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: