ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Improved dosimetric accuracy with semi-automatic contour propagation of organs-at-risk in glioblastoma patients undergoing chemoradiation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Evolving concepts in margin strategies and adaptive radiotherapy for glioblastoma: A new future is on the horizon.Neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- The Promise of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiation Oncology Practice in the Management of Brain, Prostate, and GI Malignancies.JCO global oncology · 2022Review
- Post-operative glioblastoma multiforme segmentation with uncertainty estimation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Organ Contouring for Lung Cancer Patients with a Seed Generation Scheme and Random Walks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Pattern of Recurrence of Glioblastoma Versus Grade 4 IDH-Mutant Astrocytoma Following Chemoradiation: A Retrospective Matched-Cohort Analysis.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe study the changes in organs-at-risk (OARs) morphology as contoured on serial MRIs during chemoradiation therapy (CRT) of glioblastoma (GBM). The dosimetric implication of assuming non-deformable OAR changes and the accuracy and feasibility of semi-automatic OAR contour propagation are investigated.
methodsFourteen GBM patients who were treated with adjuvant CRT for GBM prospectively underwent MRIs on fractions 0 (i.e., planning), 10, 20, and 1 month post last fraction of CRT. Three sets of OAR contours - (a) manual, (b) rigidly registered (static), and (c) semi-automatically propagated - were compared using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Dosimetric impact was determined by comparing the minimum dose to the 0.03 cc receiving the highest dose (D0.03 cc) on a clinically approved reference, non-adapted radiation therapy plan.
resultsThe DSC between the manual contours and the static contours decreased significantly over time (fraction 10: [mean ± 1 SD] 0.78 ± 0.17, post 1 month: 0.76 ± 0.17, P = 0.02) while the HD (P = 0.74) and the difference in D0.03cc did not change significantly (P = 0.51). Using the manual contours as reference, compared to static contours, propagated contours have a significantly higher DSC (propagated: [mean ± 1 SD] 0.81 ± 0.15, static: 0.77 ± 0.17, P < 0.001), lower HD (propagated: 3.77 ± 1.8 mm, static: 3.96 ± 1.6 mm, P = 0.002), and a significantly lower absolute difference in D0.03cc (propagated: 101 ± 159 cGy, static: 136 ± 243 cGy, P = 0.019).
conclusionsNonrigid changes in OARs over time lead to different maximum doses than planned. By using semi-automatic OAR contour propagation, OARs are more accurately delineated on subsequent fractions, with corresponding improved accuracy of the reported dose to the OARs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.