Trial reportBMC cancer2015
Multimodality imaging with CT, MR and FDG-PET for radiotherapy target volume delineation in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerable interobserver variation in delineation of pancreatic cancer on 3DCT and 4DCT: a multi-institutional study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Trial
- Interobserver Variation Within Planning Target Volume and Organs at Risk in a Patient with Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: A Contouring Study with Anatomical Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Interobserver Variability in a Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) Head and Neck Course. Is Current Contouring Training Sufficient?Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Enhanced head and neck radiotherapy target definition through multidisciplinary delineation and peer review: A prospective single-center study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Intermodality Variability in Gross Tumor Volume Delineation for Radiation Therapy Planning in Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- The Use of MR-Guided Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer and Recommended Reporting Guidance.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2024Review
- Impact of MRI on target volume definition in head and neck cancer patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- The Impact of Interactive MRI-Based Radiologist Review on Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation in Head and Neck Cancer.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2023Article
- Head and neck cancer treatment outcome prediction: a comparison between machine learning with conventional radiomics features and deep learning radiomics.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Automatic gross tumor segmentation of canine head and neck cancer using deep learning and cross-species transfer learning.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Article
- Delineation uncertainties of tumour volumes on MRI of head and neck cancer patients.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Characterization of positioning uncertainties in PET-CT-MR trimodality solutions for radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Review
- Comprehensive Quantitative Evaluation of Variability in Magnetic Resonance-Guided Delineation of Oropharyngeal Gross Tumor Volumes and High-Risk Clinical Target Volumes: An R-IDEAL Stage 0 Prospective Study.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022Article
- Assessing the impact of magnetic resonance treatment simulation (MRSIM) on target volume delineation and dose to organs at risk for oropharyngeal radiotherapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Automated algorithm for calculation of setup corrections and planning target volume margins for offline image-guided radiotherapy protocols.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- An Inter-observer Study to Determine Radiotherapy Planning Target Volumes for Recurrent Gynaecological Cancer Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Only With Computed Tomography-Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2021Article
- Comparison of tumor delineation using dual energy computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging in head and neck cancer re-irradiation cases.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Gross tumour volume comparison in oropharynx carcinomas using different intelligent imaging software. A retrospective analysis.Polish journal of radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to quantify the variation in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma gross tumour volume (GTV) delineation between CT, MR and FDG PET-CT imaging.
methodsA prospective, single centre, pilot study was undertaken where 11 patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancers (2 tonsil, 9 base of tongue primaries) underwent pre-treatment, contrast enhanced, FDG PET-CT and MR imaging, all performed in a radiotherapy treatment mask. CT, MR and CT-MR GTVs were contoured by 5 clinicians (2 radiologists and 3 radiation oncologists). A semi-automated segmentation algorithm was used to contour PET GTVs. Volume and positional analyses were undertaken, accounting for inter-observer variation, using linear mixed effects models and contour comparison metrics respectively.
resultsSignificant differences in mean GTV volume were found between CT (11.9 cm(3)) and CT-MR (14.1 cm(3)), p < 0.006, CT-MR and PET (9.5 cm(3)), p < 0.0009, and MR (12.7 cm(3)) and PET, p < 0.016. Substantial differences in GTV position were found between all modalities with the exception of CT-MR and MR GTVs. A mean of 64 %, 74 % and 77 % of the PET GTVs were included within the CT, MR and CT-MR GTVs respectively. A mean of 57 % of the MR GTVs were included within the CT GTV; conversely a mean of 63 % of the CT GTVs were included within the MR GTV. CT inter-observer variability was found to be significantly higher in terms of position and/or volume than both MR and CT-MR (p < 0.05). Significant differences in GTV volume were found between GTV volumes delineated by radiologists (9.7 cm(3)) and oncologists (14.6 cm(3)) for all modalities (p = 0.001).
conclusionsThe use of different imaging modalities produced significantly different GTVs, with no single imaging technique encompassing all potential GTV regions. The use of MR reduced inter-observer variability. These data suggest delineation based on multimodality imaging has the potential to improve accuracy of GTV definition.
trial registrationISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN34165059 . Registered 2nd February 2015.
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.