ArticleFrontiers in oncology2017
Evaluation of PET/MRI for Tumor Volume Delineation for Head and Neck Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of contrast-to-noise ratio of liver tumors between dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and respiration-tracked 4D-CT for radiotherapy targeting.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Role ofCancers · 2024Review
- Virtual tumor mapping and margin control with 3-D planning and navigation.Innovative surgical sciences · 2024Review
- Impact of MRI on target volume definition in head and neck cancer patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Article
- Gross tumor volume delineation in primary prostate cancer onCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Article
- Magnetic Fields and Cancer: Epidemiology, Cellular Biology, and Theranostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Visualising the urethra for prostate radiotherapy planning.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Hybrid PET/MRI for Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) Delineation in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Radiotherapy.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
- PET/MRI-guided GTV delineation during radiotherapy planning in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019Article
- Article
- Assessment of image quality of a radiotherapy-specific hardware solution for PET/MRI in head and neck cancer patients.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2018Article
- MRI analysis and clinical significance of lower extremity muscle cross-sectional area after spinal cord injury.Neural regeneration research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionComputed tomography (CT), combined positron emitted tomography and CT (PET/CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used in head and neck radiation planning. Hybrid PET/MRI has garnered attention for potential added value in cancer staging and treatment planning. Herein, we compare PET/MRI vs. planning CT for head and neck cancer gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe prospectively enrolled patients with head and neck cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation to 60-70 Gy using IMRT. We performed pretreatment contrast-enhanced planning CT and gadolinium-enhanced PET/MRI. Primary and nodal volumes were delineated on planning CT (GTV-CT) prospectively before treatment and PET/MRI (GTV-PET/MRI) retrospectively after treatment. GTV-PET/MRI was compared to GTV-CT using separate rigid registrations for each tumor volume. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) metric evaluating spatial overlap and modified Hausdorff distance (mHD) evaluating mean orthogonal distance difference were calculated. Minimum dose to 95% of GTVs (D95) was compared.
resultsEleven patients were evaluable (10 oropharynx, 1 larynx). Nine patients had evaluable primary tumor GTVs and seven patients had evaluable nodal GTVs. Mean primary GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 13.2 and 14.3 cc, with mean intersection 8.7 cc, DSC 0.63, and mHD 1.6 mm. D95 was 65.3 Gy for primary GTV-CT vs. 65.2 Gy for primary GTV-PET/MRI. Mean nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 19.0 and 23.0 cc, with mean intersection 14.4 cc, DSC 0.69, and mHD 2.3 mm. D95 was 62.3 Gy for both nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI.
conclusionIn this series of patients with head and neck (primarily oropharynx) cancer, PET/MRI and CT-GTVs had similar volumes (though there were individual cases with larger differences) with overall small discrepancies in spatial overlap, small mean orthogonal distance differences, and similar radiation doses.
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.