Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25609496›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2014

Clinical evaluation of semi-automatic landmark-based lesion tracking software for CT-scans.

Peter Dankerl, Alexander Cavallaro, Matthias Dietzel, Alexey Tsymbal, Martin Kramer, Sascha Seifert, Michael Uder, Matthias Hammon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. coPERCIST: AI-assisted PET-CT response assessment.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Peter Dankerl
Alexander Cavallaro
Matthias Dietzel
Alexey Tsymbal
Martin Kramer
Sascha Seifert
Michael Uder
Matthias Hammon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate a semi-automatic landmark-based lesion tracking software enabling navigation between RECIST lesions in baseline and follow-up CT-scans.

methodsThe software automatically detects 44 stable anatomical landmarks in each thoraco/abdominal/pelvic CT-scan, sets up a patient specific coordinate-system and cross-links the coordinate-systems of consecutive CT-scans. Accuracy of the software was evaluated on 96 RECIST lesions (target- and non-target lesions) in baseline and follow-up CT-scans of 32 oncologic patients (64 CT-scans). Patients had to present at least one thoracic, one abdominal and one pelvic RECIST lesion. Three radiologists determined the deviation between lesions' centre and the software's navigation result in consensus.

resultsThe initial mean runtime of the system to synchronize baseline and follow-up examinations was 19.4 ± 1.2 seconds, with subsequent navigation to corresponding RECIST lesions facilitating in real-time. Mean vector length of the deviations between lesions' centre and the semi-automatic navigation result was 10.2 ± 5.1 mm without a substantial systematic error in any direction. Mean deviation in the cranio-caudal dimension was 5.4 ± 4.0 mm, in the lateral dimension 5.2 ± 3.9 mm and in the ventro-dorsal dimension 5.3 ± 4.0 mm.

conclusionThe investigated software accurately and reliably navigates between lesions in consecutive CT-scans in real-time, potentially accelerating and facilitating cancer staging.

Indexed as

SoftwareTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25609496
PMCPMC4212533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.