ArticleRadiological physics and technology2016
Preliminary study of apparent diffusion coefficient assessment after ion beam therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Product development of a condenser dosimeter using a skin-insulated USB-A-substrate with a silicon X-ray diode.Radiological physics and technology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the state of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the liver after ion beam therapy by analyzing the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). In this retrospective study, we evaluated 13 HCC lesions in 10 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging before and after therapy. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed with use of b values of 0, 150, and 800 s/mm(2). The ADC was determined for the tumor, irradiated liver, and normal liver. The maximum size of the tumor was measured, and reduction in tumor size was determined as a ratio of the maximum size of the diameter of the tumor. We compared the ADC before and after the therapy with the reduction in tumor size ratio. The reduction in tumor size ratio was compared with the ADCs of the tumors. The ADC of the tumor and the irradiated liver were significantly higher after therapy than before therapy. The ADC of the normal liver was not significantly different before and after therapy. The reduction ratio increased significantly (R = 0.73, P = 0.006) after therapy at the second follow-up when compared with after therapy at the first follow-up. No correlation was found between the reduction ratio and the ADC of the tumor in each follow-up. Inflammation of the liver occurs after treatment as a result of radiation doses from the ion beam, and the tumor reaches a state of necrosis. ADC value analysis provides a non-invasive assessment and yields focal information regarding the tumor and liver before and after ion beam therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27055451What 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.