Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22190750›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of radiology2012

An evaluation of four CT-MRI co-registration techniques for radiotherapy treatment planning of prone rectal cancer patients.

C J Dean, J R Sykes, R A Cooper, P Hatfield, B Carey, S Swift, S E Bacon, D Thwaites, D Sebag-Montefiore, A M Morgan

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Fully Automatic Registration Methods for Chest X-Ray Images.Journal of medical and biological engineering · 2021
    Article
  15. A machine learning algorithm for simulating immunohistochemistry: development of SOX10 virtual IHC and evaluation on primarily melanocytic neoplasms.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

C J DeanDepartment of Medical Physics, St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds, UK. chris.dean@bartsandthelondon.nhs.uk
J R Sykes
R A Cooper
P Hatfield
B Carey
S Swift
S E Bacon
D Thwaites
D Sebag-Montefiore
A M Morgan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMRI is the preferred staging modality for rectal carcinoma patients. This work assesses the CT-MRI co-registration accuracy of four commercial rigid-body techniques for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning for patients treated in the prone position without fiducial markers.

methods17 patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinoma were scanned with CT and MRI in the prone position without the use of fiducial markers. A reference co-registration was performed by consensus of a radiologist and two physicists. This was compared with two automated and two manual techniques on two separate treatment planning systems. Accuracy and reproducibility were analysed using a measure of target registration error (TRE) that was based on the average distance of the mis-registration between vertices of the clinically relevant gross tumour volume as delineated on the CT image.

resultsAn automated technique achieved the greatest accuracy, with a TRE of 2.3 mm. Both automated techniques demonstrated perfect reproducibility and were significantly faster than their manual counterparts. There was a significant difference in TRE between registrations performed on the two planning systems, but there were no significant differences between the manual and automated techniques.

conclusionFor patients with rectal cancer, MRI acquired in the prone treatment position without fiducial markers can be accurately registered with planning CT. An automated registration technique offered a fast and accurate solution with associated uncertainties within acceptable treatment planning limits.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedCarcinomaHumansRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRectal NeoplasmsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID22190750
PMCPMC3473927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.