ArticleBMC medical imaging2019
Comparative evaluation of image registration methods with different interest regions in lung cancer radiotherapy.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive Image Quality Evaluation and Motion Phantom Studies of an Ultra-Fast (6-Second) Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Imaging System on a Ring Gantry Linear Accelerator.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Bone matching versus tumor matching in image-guided carbon ion radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- A novel evaluation model of image registration for cone-beam computed tomography guided lung cancer radiotherapy.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an artificial intelligence U-net algorithm for pulmonary nodule tracking on chest computed tomography images.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Observational
- Unsupervised registration of 3D knee implant components to biplanar X-ray images.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Value of virtual bronchoscopic navigation and transbronchial ultrasound-guided sheath-guided exploration in diagnosis of peripheral lung cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Radiotherapy for lung cancer is beneficial in both the radical and palliative settings, and technologic advances in recent years now afford an opportunity for this treatment to be more targeted than ever before. Although the delivery of more accurate forms of radiotherapy has minimized the risks of side-effects, how to utilize this treatment to optimize outcomes remains questionable. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image registration used in image-guided radiotherapy, providing reasonable guidance for clinic application of CBCT in lung cancer.
methodsA total of 53 patients with lung carcinoma including 34 central and 19 peripheral lesions were collected in this study. Varian-IX linear accelerator on-board imaging (OBI) system was used to acquire CBCT scans in three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy before delivery. Different regions (whole lung/target/vertebrae/ipsilateral structure) were manually registered, and the position deviation and the registration time were analyzed.
resultsIt was suggested that 34 cases belonged to central type and 19 cases belonged to peripheral type. The volume of left lung and right lung was 1242.98 ± 452.46 cc, 1689.69 ± 574.31 cc, respectively. Tumor size was 6.65 ± 3.87 cm in diameter, and 129.67 ± 136.48 cc in volume. The percentage of left lung and right lung was 6.17 ± 1.24%, 4.74 ± 0.38%, respectively. The position deviation value and absolute value of image registration methods of X, Y and Z axis were not significant (P > 0.05). However, registration time (s) between whole lung registration group, tumor registration group, vertebral body registration group, affected lung registration group, and artificial registration group, was 3.651 ± 0.867 s, 1.144 ± 0.129 s, 1.226 ± 0.126 s, 2.081 ± 0.427 s, 179.491 ± 71.975 s, respectively. The differences were significant (P < 0.05). The registration differences between small tumor group and large tumor group were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe automatic image matching of OBI is accuracy and high reliability in recognition of offset error. Registering body or ipsilateral structure is recommended to be used in CBCT for lung cancer.
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.