ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2014
Deformable versus rigid registration of PET/CT images for radiation treatment planning of head and neck and lung cancer patients: a retrospective dosimetric comparison.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A unified workflow for classifying patterns of locoregional failure using radiotherapy treatment planning dose distributions.BJR open · 2025Article
- Structure-specific rigid dose accumulation dosimetric analysis of ablative stereotactic MRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy in ultracentral lung lesions.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Intra- and interobserver assessments of intestinal wall thickness and segmentations from transverse sections of feline abdominal ultrasound images.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2023Article
- Please Place Your Seat in the Full Upright Position: A Technical Framework for Landing Upright Radiation Therapy in the 21Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Gross Target Volumes Based on Diagnostic PET/CT for Primary Esophageal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Deforming to Best Practice: Key considerations for deformable image registration in radiotherapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2020Article
- Comparison of rigid and deformable image registration for nasopharyngeal carcinoma radiotherapy planning with diagnostic position PET/CT.Japanese journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Fully automated convolutional neural network-based affine algorithm improves liver registration and lesion co-localization on hepatobiliary phase T1-weighted MR images.European radiology experimental · 2019Article
- Deep Learning Deformation Initialization for Rapid Groupwise Registration of Inhomogeneous Image Populations.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Robust Intratumor Partitioning to Identify High-Risk Subregions in Lung Cancer: A Pilot Study.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2016Article
- Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/Computed Tomography (CT) Imaging in Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning: A Review of PET Imaging Tracers and Methods to Incorporate PET/CT.Advances in radiation oncologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical impact of using deformable registration in tumor volume definition between separately acquired PET/CT and planning CT images.
methodsTen lung and 10 head and neck cancer patients were retrospectively selected. PET/CT images were registered with planning CT scans using commercially available software. Radiation oncologists defined two sets of gross tumor volumes based on either rigidly or deformably registered PET/CT images, and properties of these volumes were then compared.
resultsThe average displacement between rigid and deformable gross tumor volumes was 1.8 mm (0.7 mm) with a standard deviation of 1.0 mm (0.6 mm) for the head and neck (lung) cancer subjects. The Dice similarity coefficients ranged from 0.76-0.92 and 0.76-0.97 for the head and neck and lung subjects, respectively, indicating conformity. All gross tumor volumes received at least 95% of the prescribed dose to 99% of their volume. Differences in the mean radiation dose delivered to the gross tumor volumes were at most 2%. Differences in the fraction of the tumor volumes receiving 100% of the radiation dose were at most 5%.
conclusionsThe study revealed limitations in the commercial software used to perform deformable registration. Unless significant anatomical differences between PET/CT and planning CT images are present, deformable registration was shown to be of marginal value when delineating gross tumor volumes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.