Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30103786›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2018

Upcoming imaging concepts and their impact on treatment planning and treatment response in radiation oncology.

Paul Russell Roberts, Ashesh B Jani, Satyaseelan Packianathan, Ashley Albert, Rahul Bhandari, Srinivasan Vijayakumar

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. PET/MRI-guided GTV delineation during radiotherapy planning in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019
    Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Paul Russell RobertsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 350 Woodrow Wilson Drive Suite 1600, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA.
Ashesh B JaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Satyaseelan PackianathanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 350 Woodrow Wilson Drive Suite 1600, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA.
Ashley AlbertDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 350 Woodrow Wilson Drive Suite 1600, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA.
Rahul BhandariDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 350 Woodrow Wilson Drive Suite 1600, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA.
Srinivasan VijayakumarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 350 Woodrow Wilson Drive Suite 1600, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA. svijayakumar@umc.edu.
University of Mississippi Medical Center · USJackson Memorial Hospital · USEmory University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For 2018, the American Cancer Society estimated that there would be approximately 1.7 million new diagnoses of cancer and about 609,640 cancer-related deaths in the United States. By 2030 these numbers are anticipated to exceed a staggering 21 million annual diagnoses and 13 million cancer-related deaths. The three primary therapeutic modalities for cancer treatments are surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Individually or in combination, these treatment modalities have provided and continue to provide curative and palliative care to the myriad victims of cancer.Today, CT-based treatment planning is the primary means through which conventional photon radiation therapy is planned. Although CT remains the primary treatment planning modality, the field of radiation oncology is moving beyond the sole use of CT scans to define treatment targets and organs at risk. Complementary tissue scans, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron electron emission (PET) scans, have all improved a physician's ability to more specifically identify target tissues, and in some cases, international guidelines have even been issued. Moreover, efforts to combine PET and MR to define solid tumors for radiotherapy planning and treatment evaluation are also gaining traction.Keeping these advances in mind, we present brief overviews of other up-and-coming key imaging concepts that appear promising for initial treatment target definition or treatment response from radiation therapy.

Indexed as

Fluorescent DyesAnimalsContrast MediaDiagnostic ImagingElectromagnetic PhenomenaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiceMicroscopyMultimodal ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyRadiation OncologySpectrometry, FluorescenceSpectroscopy, Near-InfraredSpectrum Analysis, RamanTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaFluorescent DyesImagingRadiation therapyTreatment planningTreatment response

Identifiers

PMID30103786
PMCPMC6088418
OpenAlexW2886682094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.