ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020
Comparison of radiographer interobserver image registration variability using cone beam CT and MR for cervix radiotherapy.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of an educational tool in cervix image registration across three imaging modalities.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- A model to guide the management and decision of re-planning during radiotherapy for cervical cancer.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Are cone beam CT image matching skills transferrable from planning CT to planning MRI for MR-only prostate radiotherapy?The British journal of radiology · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the consistency of therapy radiographers performing image registration using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-CT, magnetic resonance (MR)-CT, and MR-MR image guidance for cervix cancer radiotherapy and to assess that MR-based image guidance is not inferior to CBCT standard practice.
methods10 patients receiving cervix radiation therapy underwent daily CBCT guidance and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging weekly during treatment. Offline registration of each MR image, and corresponding CBCT, to planning CT was performed by five radiographers. MR images were also registered to the earliest MR interobserver variation was assessed using modified Bland-Altman analysis with clinically acceptable 95% limits of agreement (LoA) defined as ±5.0 mm.
results30 CBCT-CT, 30 MR-CT and 20 MR-MR registrations were performed by each observer. Registration variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were minor and both strategies resulted in 95% LoA over the clinical threshold in the anteroposterior direction (CBCT-CT ±5.8 mm, MR-CT ±5.4 mm). MR-MR registrations achieved a significantly improved 95% LoA in the anteroposterior direction (±4.3 mm). All strategies demonstrated similar results in lateral and longitudinal directions.
conclusionThe magnitude of interobserver variations between CBCT-CT and MR-CT were similar, confirming that MR-CT radiotherapy workflows are comparable to CBCT-CT image-guided radiotherapy. Our results suggest MR-MR radiotherapy workflows may be a superior registration strategy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first publication quantifying interobserver registration of multimodality image registration strategies for cervix radical radiotherapy patients.
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.