ArticleAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019
Feasibility of rapid integrated radiation therapy planning with follow-up FDG PET/CT to improve overall treatment assessment in head and neck cancer.
Article in American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated segmentation of lesions and organs at risk on [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Differences among [Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Development of an automated radiotherapy dose accumulation workflow for locally advanced high-risk prostate cancer - A technical report.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
- Does a 6-point scale approach to post-treatment 18F-FDG PET-CT allow to improve response assessment in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma? A multicenter study.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2020Article
- Recent advances of PET imaging in clinical radiation oncology.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflammatory changes and residual disease are difficult to distinguish after high dose, definitive radiotherapy of head and neck malignancies. FDG uptake located within a high dose field may more likely represent inflammatory changes, and FDG uptake outside of the radiation field could represent unsuspected and under treated disease. In situ knowledge of the precise radiotherapy fields, therefore, may be useful in distinguishing these etiologies. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility of rapid integration of radiation treatment field images during follow-up FDG PET/CT imaging. Twenty head and neck cancer patients who underwent radiation therapy were identified. A MIM based workflow was created which fused the radiation treatment CT, including the planning volumes and isodose curves, into the follow-up imaging. Two board certified physicians, blinded to treatment outcome, reviewed the follow-up exams, half with the treatment information and half without. Each exam was scored for recurrent or residual disease, confidence of the read and a qualitative assessment to the overall usefulness of the treatment plan. Interpretation accuracy improved from 80 to 90% with integration of the treatment plan. Similarly, the sensitivity improved from 71% to 86%, while the specificity increased from 85% to 92%. Confidence also increased by 0.7 on a 5 point scale for both readers. Data demonstrate the clinical feasibility of rapidly incorporating radiation treatment dosimetry into follow-up FDG PET/CT exams in patients with head and neck cancer. Preliminary results demonstrated a simple, efficient method which improved accuracy of interpretation and overall reader confidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30911435PMC6420709What 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.