ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2015
A new two-step accurate CT-MRI fusion technique for post-implant prostate cancer.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-dose rate endorectal brachytherapy for rectal cancer: A state-of-the-art review.Cancer science · 2023Review
- Deformable MR-CBCT prostate registration using biomechanically constrained deep learning networks.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Focal low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2020Article
- Deformable registration of x ray and MRI for postimplant dosimetry in low dose rate prostate brachytherapy.Medical physics · 2019Article
- Article
- Effect of pulse sequence parameter selection on signal strength in positive-contrast MRI markers for MRI-based prostate postimplant assessment.Medical physics · 2016Article
- Development of a magnetic resonance imaging protocol to visualize encapsulated contrast agent markers in prostate brachytherapy recipients: initial patient experience.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop an accurate method of fusing computed tomography (CT) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for post-implant dosimetry after prostate seed implant brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND
methodsProstate cancer patients were scheduled to undergo CT and MRI after brachytherapy. We obtained the three MRI sequences on fat-suppressed T1-weighted imaging (FST1-WI), T2-weighted imaging (T2-WI), and T2*-weighted imaging (T2*-WI) in each patient. We compared the lengths and widths of 450 seed source images in the 10 study patients on CT, FST1-WI, T2-WI, and T2*-WI. After CT-MRI fusion using source positions by the least-squares method, we decided the center of each seed source and measured the distance of these centers between CT and MRI to estimate the fusion accuracy.
resultsThe measured length and width of the seeds were 6.1 ± 0.5 mm (mean ± standard deviation) and 3.2 ± 0.2 mm on CT, 5.9 ± 0.4 mm, and 2.4 ± 0.2 mm on FST1-WI, 5.5 ± 0.5 mm and 1.8 ± 0.2 mm on T2-WI, and 7.8 ± 1.0 mm and 4.1 ± 0.7 mm on T2*-WI, respectively. The measured source location shifts on CT/FST1-WI and CT/T2-WI after image fusion in the 10 study patients were 0.9 ± 0.4 mm and 1.4 ± 0.2 mm, respectively. The shift on CT/FST1-WI was less than on CT/T2-WI (p = 0.005).
conclusionsFor post-implant dosimetry after prostate seed implant brachytherapy, more accurate fusion of CT and T2-WI is achieved if CT and FST1-WI are fused first using the least-squares method and the center position of each source, followed by fusion of the FST1-WI and T2-WI images. This method is more accurate than direct image fusion.
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.