ArticleMedicine2017
Comparative evaluation of target volumes defined by deformable and rigid registration of diagnostic PET/CT to planning CT in primary esophageal cancer.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative, Multiobserver Analysis of Nodal Contouring Methods in Pelvic Online Cone Beam-Based Adaptive Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Gross Tumor Volume Definition and Comparative Assessment for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma From 3DFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Gross Target Volumes Based on Diagnostic PET/CT for Primary Esophageal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Role of clip markers placed by endoscopic ultrasonography in contouring gross tumor volume for thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: one prospective study.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Comparison of different images in gross target volume delineating on VX2 nasopharyngeal transplantation tumor models.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Normal liver tissue change after proton beam therapy.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the geometrical differences of target volumes propagated by deformable image registration (DIR) and rigid image registration (RIR) to assist target volume delineation between diagnostic Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and planning CT for primary esophageal cancer (EC).
methodsTwenty-five patients with EC sequentially underwent a diagnostic F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/CT scan and planning CT simulation. Only 19 patients with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≥ 2.0 of the primary volume were available. Gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were delineated using CT and PET display settings. The PET/CT images were then registered with planning CT using MIM software. Subsequently, the PET and CT contours were propagated by RIR and DIR to planning CT. The properties of these volumes were compared.
resultsWhen GTVCT delineated on CT of PET/CT after both RIR and DIR was compared with GTV contoured on planning CT, significant improvements using DIR were observed in the volume, displacements of the center of mass (COM) in the 3-dimensional (3D) direction, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) (P = 0.003; 0.006; 0.014). Although similar improvements were not observed for the same comparison using DIR for propagated PET contours from diagnostic PET/CT to planning CT (P > 0.05), for DSC and displacements of COM in the 3D direction of PET contours, the DIR resulted in the improved volume of a large percentage of patients (73.7%; 68.45%; 63.2%) compared with RIR. For diagnostic CT-based contours or PET contours at SUV2.5 propagated by DIR with planning CT, the DSC and displacements of COM in 3D directions in the distal segment were significantly improved compared to the upper and middle segments (P > 0.05).
conclusionWe observed a trend that deformable registration might improve the overlap for gross target volumes from diagnostic PET/CT to planning CT. The distal EC might benefit more from DIR.
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.