ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2017
Interobserver variability of patient positioning using four different CT datasets for image registration in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organ-contour-driven auto-matching algorithm in image-guided radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Comparison of radiographer interobserver image registration variability using cone beam CT and MR for cervix radiotherapy.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Moving targets in 4D-CTs versus MIP and AIP: comparison of patients data to phantom data.BMC cancer · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of different reference CT datasets on manual image registration with free-breathing three-dimensional (3D) cone beam CTs (FB-CBCT) for patient positioning by several observers.
methodsFor 48 patients with lung lesions, manual image registration with FB-CBCTs was performed by four observers. A slow planning CT (PCT), average intensity projection (AIP), maximum intensity projection (MIP), and midventilation CT (MidV) were used as reference images. Couch shift differences between the four reference CT datasets for each observer as well as shift differences between the observers for the same reference CT dataset were determined. Statistical analyses were performed and correlations between the registration differences and the 3D tumor motion and the CBCT score were calculated.
resultsThe mean 3D shift difference between different reference CT datasets was the smallest for AIPvsMIP (range 1.1-2.2 mm) and the largest for MidVvsPCT (2.8-3.5 mm) with differences >10 mm. The 3D shifts showed partially significant correlations to 3D tumor motion and CBCT score. The interobserver comparison for the same reference CTs resulted in the smallest ∆3D mean differences and mean ∆3D standard deviation for ∆AIP (1.5 ± 0.7 mm, 0.7 ± 0.4 mm). The maximal 3D shift difference between observers was 10.4 mm (∆MidV). Both 3D tumor motion and mean CBCT score correlated with the shift differences (R
conclusionThe applied reference CT dataset impacts image registration and causes interobserver variabilities. The 3D tumor motion and CBCT quality affect shift differences. The smallest differences were found for AIP which might be the most appropriate CT dataset for image registration with FB-CBCT.
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.