ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Gross Tumor Delineation in Esophageal Cancer on MRI Compared With
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- MR-Guided Radiotherapy in Oesophageal Cancer: From Principles to Practice-A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- PET/CT and MR Improve Interobserver Agreement in Primary Tumor Determination for Radiotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Role of MRI and PET/CT in Radiotherapy Target Volume Determination in Gastrointestinal Cancers-Review of the Literature.Cancers · 2023Review
- Utility of PET Scans in the Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Tumors.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Review
- Inter-Observer and Intra-Observer Variability in Gross Tumor Volume Delineation of Primary Esophageal Carcinomas Based on Different Combinations of Diagnostic Multimodal Images.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Review of MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Comparison of gross target volumes based on four-dimensional CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in thoracic esophageal cancer.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrent delineation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) in esophageal cancer relies on computed tomography (CT) and combination with
methodsTen observers delineated primary esophageal tumor GTVs of 6 patients on FDG-PET/CT, T2W-MRI, and T2W + DW-MRI. GTVs, generalized conformity indices, in-slice delineation variation (root mean square), and standard deviations in the position of the most cranial and caudal delineated slice were calculated.
resultsDelineations on MRI showed smaller GTVs compared with FDG-PET/CT-based delineations. The main variation was seen at the cranial and caudal border. No differences were observed in conformity indices (FDG-PET/CT, 0.68; T2W-MRI, 0.66; T2W + DW-MRI, 0.68) and in-slice variation (root mean square, 0.13 cm on FDG-PET/CT; 0.10 cm on T2W-MRI; 0.14 cm on T2W + DW-MRI). In the 2 tumors involving the gastroesophageal junction, addition of DW-MRI to T2W-MRI significantly decreased caudal border variation.
conclusionsMRI-based target delineation of the esophageal tumor is feasible with interobserver variability comparable to that with FDG-PET/CT, despite limited experience with delineation on MRI. Most variation was seen at cranial-caudal borders, and addition of DW-MRI to T2W-MRI may reduce caudal delineation variation of gastroesophageal junction tumors.
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.