Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26549992›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology

Influence of the type of imaging on the delineation process during the treatment planning.

Weronika Jackowiak, Bartosz Bąk, Anna Kowalik, Adam Ryczkowski, Małgorzata Skórska, Małgorzata Paszek-Widzińska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Tomotherapy megavoltage computed tomography for lung tumor positioning and contouring.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Autosegmentation of the rectum on megavoltage image guidance scans.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2019
    Article
  5. Influence of the contrast agents on treatment planning dose calculations of prostate and rectal cancers.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    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

6 authors.

Weronika JackowiakRadiotherapy Department I, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Bartosz BąkRadiotherapy Department II, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Anna KowalikMedical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Adam RyczkowskiMedical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Małgorzata SkórskaMedical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Małgorzata Paszek-WidzińskaRadiotherapy Department II, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to compare the intra- and interobserver contouring variability for structures with density of organ at risk in two types of tomography: kilovoltage computed tomography (KVCT) versus megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT). The intra- and interobserver differences were examined on both types of tomography for structures which simulate human tissue or organs. MATERIALS AND

methodsSix structures with density of the liver, bone, trachea, lung, soft tissue and muscle were created and used. For the measurements, the special water phantom with all structures was designed. To evaluate interobserver variability, five observers delineated the structures in both types of computed tomography (CT).

resultsIntraobserver variability was in the range of 1-14% and was the largest for the liver. The observers segmented larger volumes on MVCT compared with KVCT for the trachea (79.56 ccm vs.74.91 ccm), lung (87.61 vs. 82.50), soft tissue (154.24 vs. 145.47) and muscle (164.01 vs. 157.89). For the liver (98.13 vs. 99.38) and bone (51.86 vs. 67.97), the volume on MVCT was smaller than KVCT. The statistically significant differences between observers were observed for structures with density of the liver, bone and soft tissue on KVCT and for the liver, lung and soft tissue on MVCT. For the structures with density of the trachea and muscles, there were no significant differences for both types of tomography.

conclusionsDuring the contouring process the interobserver and intraobserver contouring uncertainty was larger on MVCT, especially for structures with HU near 80, compared with KVCT.

Indexed as

DelineationInterobserver variabilityKilovoltage computed tomographyMegavoltage computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID26549992
PMCPMC4597094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.