Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30696488›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2019

Analyses of the factors influencing the accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in comparison with cone-beam CT in image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer with or without pelvic lymph node irradiation.

Sha Zhou, Liling Luo, Jibin Li, Maosheng Lin, Li Chen, Jianhui Shao, Shipei Lu, Yaru Ma, Yingting Zhang, Wenfen Chen and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2019. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sha ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Liling LuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Jibin LiDepartment of Clinical Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Maosheng LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Li ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Jianhui ShaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Shipei LuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Yaru MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Yingting ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Wenfen ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Mengzhong LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Shiliang LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. liushil@sysucc.org.cn.
Liru HeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, No. 651, Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. helir@sysucc.org.cn.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South ChinaSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree-dimensional ultrasound (3DUS) is an attractive option in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. However, the potential factors influencing the accuracy of 3DUS in comparison with cone-beam CT (CBCT) in IGRT for PCa patients haven't been clearly identified.

methodsThe differences between US/US and CBCT/CT registrations were analyzed over 586 and 580 sessions for 24 and 25 PCa patients treated with or without pelvic lymph node irradiation, respectively. The clinical factors that may influence registration differences were also evaluated.

resultsThe average discrepancies between US/US and CBCT/CT registrations were - 0.28 ± 5.28 mm, - 0.16 ± 3.48 mm, and - 0.47 ± 4.31 mm in the superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, respectively. The discrepancies were respectively less than 5 mm longitudinally, laterally, and vertically in 64.4 and 70.1%, 84.9 and 89.2%, and 75.9 and 79.1% of the patients treated with or without pelvic lymph node irradiation, respectively. The registration differences were significantly smaller at least in one direction in patients younger than 70 years, without pelvic lymph node irradiation, guided by transperineal ultrasonography and had a bladder volume smaller than 300 mL.

conclusionsAge, irradiated regions, 3DUS modality, and bladder volume are important factors that may influence the differences between US/US and CBCT/CT registrations. 3DUS guidance is more feasible for younger PCa patients with a better control of bladder volume during the treatment and those who did not undergo pelvic lymph node irradiation.

Indexed as

AgedCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalLymphatic IrradiationLymph NodesMalePelvisPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesCone beam computed tomographyImage-guided radiotherapyProstate cancerThree-dimensional ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID30696488
PMCPMC6352439
OpenAlexW2917409747

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.