ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
A simple method of evaluating margin-growing accuracy in image-guided radiation therapy.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. 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.
- Impact of CT slice thickness on volume and dose evaluation during thoracic cancer radiotherapy.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Dependence of volume calculation and margin growth accuracy on treatment planning systems for stereotactic radiosurgery.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Dynamic Changes in Bladder Morphology Over Time in Cervical Cancer Patients.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn order to not add extra uncertainty to radiotherapy planning process, accurate margin algorithm is necessary, therefore we propose a centre-shift method to estimate its accuracy.
methodsA series of spherical phantoms are used with different CT slice separations (SSs) and pixel sizes (PSs). They are grown by different margins, and displaced geometric centres provide a window on accuracy. Volume difference between pre- and post-expansion is also calculated to double-check the accuracy.
resultsThe measured margin nearly varies as multiples of PS in the transaxial plane; in the superior-inferior direction, it is approximately equal to SS when the ideal margin is smaller than SS. A sphere's volume of <1 cm(3) is underestimated by 3-70% for all PSs, and 2-100% for SS of ≤5 mm but overestimated up to 112% for >5 mm. For volumes of >1 cm(3), relative volume error decreases, and it is nearly zero for >100 cm(3). The dependence of margin accuracy on SS and PS is largely eliminated by volume difference method.
conclusionWe have proposed a simple method to estimate margin-growing accuracy and suggested corrective action to minimize the variation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: One big difference from the previous results is that SS and PS both influence the accuracy of margin growth and volume calculation in Eclipse(™) treatment planning system (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA).
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.