Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30242570›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2018

Comparison between manual and automatic image registration in image-guided radiation therapy using megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography with an imaging beam line for prostate cancer.

Takashi Hashido, Shinya Nakasone, Mari Fukao, Seiichi Ota, Shinichi Inoue

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluation of the XVI dual registration tool for image-guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2021
    Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Takashi HashidoDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. t_hashido@hp-rad.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Shinya NakasoneDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Mari FukaoDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Seiichi OtaDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Shinichi InoueDivision of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to compare and assess the compatibility of the bone-structure-based manual and maximization of mutual information (MMI)-algorithm-based automatic image registration using megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT) images acquired with an imaging beam line. A total of 1163 MV-CBCT images from 30 prostate cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed. The differences between setup errors in three directions (left-right, LR; superior-inferior, SI; anterior-posterior, AP) of both registration methods were investigated. Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) and Bland-Altman agreements were evaluated. Agreements were defined by a bias close to zero and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) less than ± 3 mm. The cumulative frequencies of the absolute differences between the two registration methods were calculated to assess the distributions of the setup error differences. There were significant differences (p < 0.001) in the setup errors between both registration methods. There were moderate (SI, r = 0.45) and strong positive correlation coefficients (LR, r = 0.74; AP, r = 0.72), whereas the 95% LoA (bias ± 1.96 × standard deviation of the setup error differences) were - 1.61 ± 4.29 mm (LR), - 0.41 ± 5.45 mm (SI), and 0.67 ± 4.29 mm (AP), revealing no agreements in all directions. The cumulative frequencies (%) of the cases with absolute setup error differences within 3 mm in each direction were 80.83% (LR), 81.86% (SI), and 90.71% (AP), with all directions having large proportions of > 3-mm differences. The MMI-algorithm-based automatic registration is not compatible with the bone-structure-based manual registration and should not be used alone for prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyAgedAutomationHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy Setup ErrorsCone-beam computed tomographyImage-guided radiation therapyImage registrationImaging beam lineMaximization of mutual informationSetup error

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.