Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30448003›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2019

4D liver tumor localization using cone-beam projections and a biomechanical model.

You Zhang, Michael R Folkert, Bin Li, Xiaokun Huang, Jeffrey J Meyer, Tsuicheng Chiu, Pam Lee, Joubin Nasehi Tehrani, Jing Cai, David Parsons and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Real-Time Dose-Guided Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Medical physics challenges in clinical MR-guided radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

You ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA. Electronic address: you.zhang@utsouthwestern.edu.
Michael R FolkertDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Bin LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaokun HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Jeffrey J MeyerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Tsuicheng ChiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Pam LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Joubin Nasehi TehraniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, USA.
Jing CaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, , USA.
David ParsonsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Xun JiaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Jing WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Southwestern Medical Center · USDuke University · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Virginia Medical Center · US

Funding

Next generation 4D-CBCT for lung cancer radiation therapyR01EB020366 · NIBIB · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI WANG, JING · 2015 to 2018
$1.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo improve the accuracy of liver tumor localization, this study tests a biomechanical modeling-guided liver cone-beam CT (CBCT) estimation (Bio-CBCT-est) technique, which generates new CBCTs by deforming a prior high-quality CT or CBCT image using deformation vector fields (DVFs). The DVFs can be used to propagate tumor contours from the prior image to new CBCTs for automatic 4D tumor localization. METHODS/MATERIALS: To solve the DVFs, the Bio-CBCT-est technique employs an iterative scheme that alternates between intensity-driven 2D-3D deformation and biomechanical modeling-guided DVF regularization and optimization. The 2D-3D deformation step solves DVFs by matching digitally reconstructed radiographs of the 3D deformed prior image to 2D phase-sorted on-board projections according to imaging intensities. This step's accuracy is limited at low-contrast intra-liver regions without sufficient intensity variations. To boost the DVF accuracy in these regions, we use the intensity-driven DVFs solved at higher-contrast liver boundaries to fine-tune the intra-liver DVFs by finite element analysis-based biomechanical modeling. We evaluated Bio-CBCT-est's accuracy with seven liver cancer patient cases. For each patient, we simulated 4D cone-beam projections from 4D-CT images, and used these projections for Bio-CBCT-est based image estimations. After Bio-CBCT-est, the DVF-propagated liver tumor/cyst contours were quantitatively compared with the manual contours on the original 4D-CT 'reference' images, using the DICE similarity index, the center-of-mass-error (COME), the Hausdorff distance (HD) and the voxel-wise cross-correlation (CC) metrics. In addition to simulation, we also performed a preliminary study to qualitatively evaluate the Bio-CBCT-est technique via clinically acquired cone beam projections. A quantitative study using an in-house deformable liver phantom was also performed.

resultsUsing 20 projections for image estimation, the average (±s.d.) DICE index increased from 0.48 ± 0.13 (by 2D-3D deformation) to 0.77 ± 0.08 (by Bio-CBCT-est), the average COME decreased from 7.7 ± 1.5 mm to 2.2 ± 1.2 mm, the average HD decreased from 10.6 ± 2.2 mm to 5.9 ± 2.0 mm, and the average CC increased from -0.004 ± 0.216 to 0.422 ± 0.206. The tumor/cyst trajectory solved by Bio-CBCT-est matched well with that manually obtained from 4D-CT reference images.

conclusionsBio-CBCT-est substantially improves the accuracy of 4D liver tumor localization via cone-beam projections and a biomechanical model.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCone-Beam Computed TomographyFour-Dimensional Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLiver NeoplasmsPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted2D-3D deformable registrationBiomechanical modelingLiver CBCTLiver tumor localization

Identifiers

PMID30448003
PMCPMC6445758
OpenAlexW2901371704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.