OPEN: optimising patient experience in head and neck radiotherapy, a phase 3 randomised control trial comparing open versus closed face masks.

Authors

Jill Nicholson, Samantha Ryan, Ciaran Malone, Claire Fitzpatrick, Roisin O 'Maolalai, Rebecca O'Donovan, Lorna Keenan, John Armstrong, Aisling Glynn, Caitriona Ryan, Ruth Woods, Brendan Mclean, Bill Garrett, Rachel Harwood, Michelle Leech, Emma Noone, Valerie Owens, Vitor Oliveira, Sarah Murphy, Jackie McCann, Margaret Looby, Joanne O'Connell, Vijayashree Hegde, Neerej Satish, Sara Faithfull, Jennifer Fennel, Nicola Elmer, Victoria Lunt, Orla McArdle, Fran Duane, Sinead Brennan

Published in

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Pages 111779. Sep 12, 2026. Epub Sep 12, 2026.

Abstract

The use of open face masks provides a potential patient centred alternative to traditional closed masks. This prospective trial aims to determine whether open masks combined with surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can deliver accurate radiotherapy without compromising setup accuracy and a more comfortable patient experience, by comparing three head and neck radiotherapy immobilisation systems: the standard closed 5‑point mask without SGRT, versus two SGRT‑supported systems using open 3‑point or open 5‑point masks.
Non-claustrophobic patients receiving radical radiotherapy were randomized (1:1:1) to standard closed 5-point masks (no SGRT), or SGRT-supported 3-point open or 5-point open masks. Setup accuracy was evaluated via daily CBCT and SGRT. Secondary analysis included: 1) patient distress levels (GHQ-12), 2) mask stability and clinical utility of SGRT monitoring for intrafraction motion, and 3) impact on resources.
Two hundred and thirty patients were randomised from January 2024 to May 2025. Arm A patients (34.2%) received closed-face masks, Arm B (35.7%) three-point open-face masks, and Arm C (30.2%) five-point open-face masks. Significant differences in inter‑fraction motion were observed only in the longitudinal axis, where the closed‑mask cohort (Arm A) demonstrated larger shifts compared with both open‑mask arms (P < 0.001). No other significant variations were observed in the vertical, lateral, or rotational axes between arms. At treatment completion patient experience metrics, including tolerability, overall experience and distress, were significantly more favourable for both open-mask cohorts compared to closed masks (p < 0.01).
This randomised trial of open masks versus a standard closed mask, demonstrates improved patient experience and equivalent setup accuracy supporting the adoption of open‑mask SGRT‑based immobilisation as a new patient centred solution.

PMID:
42731759
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 13 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.