ArticlePolish journal of radiology2020
Gross tumour volume comparison in oropharynx carcinomas using different intelligent imaging software. A retrospective analysis.
Article in Polish 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.
- Proof of concept for low dose and delayed release of tigilanol tiglate in the treatment of equine sarcoids.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Immunomodulatory mediators IL-33, soluble ST2, IL-10, IFN-Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Boric acid impedes glioblastoma growth in a rat model: insights from multi-approach analysis.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare gross tumour volume (GTV) in oropharynx carcinomas using different intelligent imaging software and to evaluate which method is more reliable for tumour volume definition in comparison with 3D ProSoma software. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe retrospectively studied 32 patients with histopathologically confirmed oropharynx carcinomas on dual-source computed tomography (CT) (all patients underwent multislice CT examination after applying 75 ml iodinated non-ionic contrast media). One radiologist calculated the tumour volume - manually measuring tumour length (L), width (W), and height (H) - and then calculated the tumour volume using the formula 0.5236 × L × W × H. The other radiologist used the syngo.CT-Liver-Analysis software to calculate the tumour volumes. Both volume measuring methods were compared with the 3D ProSoma software, which is used by radiotherapists to calculate tumour volumes. Graphpad Prism software was used for statistical data.
resultssyngo.CT-Liver-Analysis software for gross tumour volume determination has greater reliability than the standard manual method with Syngo Plaza in comparison with the 3D ProSoma software.
conclusionssyngo.CT-Liver-Analysis software is a reliable tool for GTV calculation, with a high correlation score, like that of radiotherapeutic 3D ProSoma software.
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.