ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Enhancement of megavoltage electronic portal images for markerless tumor tracking.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
purposeThe poor quality of megavoltage (MV) images from electronic portal imaging device (EPID) hinders visual verification of tumor targeting accuracy particularly during markerless tumor tracking. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a few representative image processing treatments on visual verification and detection capability of tumors under auto tracking.
methodsImages of QC-3 quality phantom, a single patient's setup image, and cine images of two-lung cancer patients were acquired. Three image processing methods were individually employed to the same original images. For each deblurring, contrast enhancement, and denoising, a total variation deconvolution, contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE), and median filter were adopted, respectively. To study the effect of image enhancement on tumor auto-detection, a tumor tracking algorithm was adopted in which the tumor position was determined as the minimum point of the mean of the sum of squared pixel differences (MSSD) between two images. The detectability and accuracy were compared.
resultsDeblurring of a quality phantom image yielded sharper edges, while the contrast-enhanced image was more readable with improved structural differentiation. Meanwhile, the denoising operation resulted in noise reduction, however, at the cost of sharpness. Based on comparison of pixel value profiles, contrast enhancement outperformed others in image perception. During the tracking experiment, only contrast enhancement resulted in tumor detection in all images using our tracking algorithm. Deblurring failed to determine the target position in two frames out of a total of 75 images. For original and denoised set, target location was not determined for the same five images. Meanwhile, deblurred image showed increased detection accuracy compared with the original set. The denoised image resulted in decreased accuracy. In the case of contrast-improved set, the tracking accuracy was nearly maintained as that of the original image.
conclusionsConsidering the effect of each processing on tumor tracking and the visual perception in a limited time, contrast enhancement would be the first consideration to visually verify the tracking accuracy of tumors on MV EPID without sacrificing tumor detectability and detection accuracy.
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.