ArticleAcademic radiology2017
3D Registration of mpMRI for Assessment of Prostate Cancer Focal Therapy.
Article in Academic radiology, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applying Focal Therapy to Lesions Detected via Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Delivering Cancer Ablation Beyond the Visibility Phenomenon.European urology open science · 2025Article
- Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2021Review
- Salvage treatment for radio-recurrent prostate cancer: a review of literature with focus on recent advancements in image-guided focal salvage therapies.International urology and nephrology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesThis study aimed to assess a novel method of three-dimensional (3D) co-registration of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations performed before and after prostate cancer focal therapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed a software platform for automatic 3D deformable co-registration of prostate MRI at different time points and applied this method to 10 patients who underwent focal ablative therapy. MRI examinations were performed preoperatively, as well as 1 week and 6 months post treatment. Rigid registration served as reference for assessing co-registration accuracy and precision.
resultsSegmentation of preoperative and postoperative prostate revealed a significant postoperative volume decrease of the gland that averaged 6.49 cc (P = .017). Applying deformable transformation based on mutual information from 120 pairs of MRI slices, we refined by 2.9 mm (max. 6.25 mm) the alignment of the ablation zone, segmented from contrast-enhanced images on the 1-week postoperative examination, to the 6-month postoperative T2-weighted images. This represented a 500% improvement over the rigid approach (P = .001), corrected by volume. The dissimilarity by Dice index of the mapped ablation zone using deformable transformation vs rigid control was significantly (P = .04) higher at the ablation site than in the whole gland.
conclusionsOur findings illustrate our method's ability to correct for deformation at the ablation site. The preliminary analysis suggests that deformable transformation computed from mutual information of preoperative and follow-up MRI is accurate in co-registration of MRI examinations performed before and after focal therapy. The ability to localize the previously ablated tissue in 3D space may improve targeting for image-guided follow-up biopsy within focal therapy protocols.
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.