ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2017
Automated calculation of point A coordinates for CT-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy of cervical cancer.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal is to develop a stand-alone application, which automatically and consistently computes the coordinates of the dose calculation point recommended by the American Brachytherapy Society (i.e., point A) based solely on the implanted applicator geometry for cervical cancer brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe application calculates point A coordinates from the source dwell geometries in the computed tomography (CT) scans, and outputs the 3D coordinates in the left and right directions. The algorithm was tested on 34 CT scans of 7 patients treated with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy using tandem and ovoid applicators. A single experienced user retrospectively and manually inserted point A into each CT scan, whose coordinates were used as the "gold standard" for all comparisons. The gold standard was subtracted from the automatically calculated points, a second manual placement by the same experienced user, and the clinically used point coordinates inserted by multiple planners. Coordinate differences and corresponding variances were compared using nonparametric tests.
resultsAutomatically calculated, manually placed, and clinically used points agree with the gold standard to < 1 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, respectively. When compared to the gold standard, the average and standard deviation of the 3D coordinate differences were 0.35 ± 0.14 mm from automatically calculated points, 0.38 ± 0.21 mm from the second manual placement, and 0.71 ± 0.44 mm from the clinically used point coordinates. Both the mean and standard deviations of the 3D coordinate differences were statistically significantly different from the gold standard, when point A was placed by multiple users (
conclusionsThe study demonstrates that the automated algorithm calculates point A coordinates consistently, while reducing inter-user variability. Point placement using the algorithm expedites the planning process and minimizes associated potential human errors.
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.