ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment2017
A Comparative Evaluation of 3 Different Free-Form Deformable Image Registration and Contour Propagation Methods for Head and Neck MRI: The Case of Parotid Changes During Radiotherapy.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation and mitigation of deformable image registration uncertainties for MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Applying Multi-Metric Deformable Image Registration for Dose Accumulation in Combined Cervical Cancer Radiotherapy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of an in-house hybrid DIR method to NiftyReg on CBCT and CT images for head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Brain CT registration using hybrid supervised convolutional neural network.Biomedical engineering online · 2021Article
- Clinical use, challenges, and barriers to implementation of deformable image registration in radiotherapy - the need for guidance and QA tools.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- A hybrid proton and hyperpolarized gas tagging MRI technique for lung respiratory motion imaging: a feasibility study.Physics in medicine and biology · 2019Article
- A multiparametric method to assess the MIM deformable image registration algorithm.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Inter-fraction movements of the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes during IGRT.Journal of radiation oncology · 2018Article
- Effect of age-dependent bone electron density on the calculated dose distribution from kilovoltage and megavoltage photon and electron radiotherapy in paediatric MRI-only treatment planning.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Mesh-to-raster region-of-interest-based nonrigid registration of multimodal images.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate and compare the deformable image registration and parotid contour propagation process for head and neck magnetic resonance imaging in patients treated with radiotherapy using 3 different approaches-the commercial MIM, the open-source Elastix software, and an optimized version of it. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve patients with head and neck cancer previously treated with radiotherapy were considered. Deformable image registration and parotid contour propagation were evaluated by considering the magnetic resonance images acquired before and after the end of the treatment. Deformable image registration, based on free-form deformation method, and contour propagation available on MIM were compared to Elastix. Two different contour propagation approaches were implemented for Elastix software, a conventional one (DIR_Trx) and an optimized homemade version, based on mesh deformation (DIR_Mesh). The accuracy of these 3 approaches was estimated by comparing propagated to manual contours in terms of average symmetric distance, maximum symmetric distance, Dice similarity coefficient, sensitivity, and inclusiveness.
resultsA good agreement was generally found between the manual contours and the propagated ones, without differences among the 3 methods; in few critical cases with complex deformations, DIR_Mesh proved to be more accurate, having the lowest values of average symmetric distance and maximum symmetric distance and the highest value of Dice similarity coefficient, although nonsignificant. The average propagation errors with respect to the reference contours are lower than the voxel diagonal (2 mm), and Dice similarity coefficient is around 0.8 for all 3 methods.
conclusionThe 3 free-form deformation approaches were not significantly different in terms of deformable image registration accuracy and can be safely adopted for the registration and parotid contour propagation during radiotherapy on magnetic resonance imaging. More optimized approaches (as DIR_Mesh) could be preferable for critical deformations.
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.