ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2014
Validation of nonrigid registration in pretreatment and follow-up PET/CT scans for quantification of tumor residue in lung cancer patients.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiparametric imaging of patient and tumour heterogeneity in non-small-cell lung cancer: quantification of tumour hypoxia, metabolism and perfusion.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Trial
- A multichannel feature-based approach for longitudinal lung CT registration in the presence of radiation induced lung damage.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- In vivo quantification of hypoxic and metabolic status of NSCLC tumors using [18F]HX4 and [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nonrigid registrations of pre- and postradiotherapy (RT) PET/CT scans of NSCLC patients were performed with different algorithms and validated tracking internal landmarks. Dice overlap ratios (DR) of high FDG-uptake areas in registered PET/CT scans were then calculated to study patterns of relapse. For 22 patients, pre- and post-RT PET/CT scans were registered first rigidly and then nonrigidly. For three patients, two types (based on Demons or Morphons) of nonrigid registration algorithms each with four different parameter settings were applied and assessed using landmark validation. The two best performing methods were tested on all patients, who were then classified into three groups: large (Group 1), minor (Group2) or insufficient improvement (Group 3) of registration accuracy. For Group 1 and 2, DRs between high FDG-uptake areas in pre- and post-RT PET scans were determined. Distances between corresponding landmarks on deformed pre-RT and post-RT scans decreased for all registration methods. Differences between Demons and Morphons methods were smaller than 1 mm. For Group 1, landmark distance decreased from 9.5 ± 2.1 mm to 3.8 ± 1.2 mm (mean ± 1 SD, p < 0.001), and for Group 3 from 13.6 ± 3.2 mm to 8.0 ± 2.2 mm (p = 0.025). No significant change was observed for Group 2 where distances decreased from 5.6± 1.3 mm to 4.5 ± 1.1 mm (p = 0.093). DRs of high FDG-uptake areas improved significantly after nonrigid registration for most patients in Group 1. Landmark validation of nonrigid registration methods for follow-up CT imaging in NSCLC is necessary. Nonrigid registration significantly improves matching between pre- and post-RT CT scans for a subset of patients, although not in all patients. Hence, the quality of the registration needs to be assessed for each patient individually. Successful nonrigid registration increased the overlap between pre- and post-RT high FDG-uptake regions.
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.