ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2020
Improving 3D ultrasound prostate localisation in radiotherapy through increased automation of interfraction matching.
Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02388308 (Evaluation of Clarity Ultrasound Guidance for Prostate Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Evaluation of Clarity Ultrasound Guidance for Prostate Therapy
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating dosimetric outcomes: a comparison of CyberKnife, VMAT FFF, and Helical Tomotherapy Radixact for treating localized prostate cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Factors affecting accuracy and precision in ultrasound guided radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeDaily image guidance is standard care for prostate radiotherapy. Innovations which improve the accuracy and efficiency of ultrasound guidance are needed, particularly with respect to reducing interobserver variation. This study explores automation tools for this purpose, demonstrated on the Elekta Clarity Autoscan®. The study was conducted as part of the Clarity-Pro trial (NCT02388308). MATERIALS AND
methodsUltrasound scan volumes were collected from 32 patients. Prostate matches were performed using two proposed workflows and the results compared with Clarity's proprietary software. Gold standard matches derived from manually localised landmarks provided a reference. The two workflows incorporated a custom 3D image registration algorithm, which was benchmarked against a third-party application (Elastix).
resultsSignificant reductions in match errors were reported from both workflows compared to standard protocol. Median (IQR) absolute errors in the left-right, anteroposterior and craniocaudal axes were lowest for the Manually Initiated workflow: 0.7(1.0) mm, 0.7(0.9) mm, 0.6(0.9) mm compared to 1.0(1.7) mm, 0.9(1.4) mm, 0.9(1.2) mm for Clarity. Median interobserver variation was ≪0.01 mm in all axes for both workflows compared to 2.2 mm, 1.7 mm, 1.5 mm for Clarity in left-right, anteroposterior and craniocaudal axes. Mean matching times was also reduced to 43 s from 152 s for Clarity. Inexperienced users of the proposed workflows attained better match precision than experienced users on Clarity.
conclusionAutomated image registration with effective input and verification steps should increase the efficacy of interfraction ultrasound guidance compared to the current commercially available tools.
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.