Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28168934›Full record

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.

Sara Broggi, Elisa Scalco, Maria Luisa Belli, Gerlinde Logghe, Dirk Verellen, Stefano Moriconi, Anna Chiara, Anna Palmisano, Renata Mellone, Claudio Fiorino and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sara Broggi1 Medical Physics Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Elisa Scalco2 Institute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology (IBFM), CNR, Segrate, Milan, Italy.
Maria Luisa Belli1 Medical Physics Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Gerlinde Logghe3 IBiTech-bioMMeda, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Dirk Verellen4 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Stefano Moriconi2 Institute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology (IBFM), CNR, Segrate, Milan, Italy.
Anna Chiara6 Radiotherapy Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Anna Palmisano7 Clinical and Experimental Radiology, Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Renata Mellone7 Clinical and Experimental Radiology, Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Claudio Fiorino1 Medical Physics Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Giovanna Rizzo2 Institute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology (IBFM), CNR, Segrate, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsCone-Beam Computed TomographyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingParotid GlandRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSoftwareaccuracy evaluationcontour propagationElastixhead and neck MRIimage registrationMIM

Identifiers

PMID28168934
PMCPMC5616054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.