ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2020
Reliability of Residual Tumor Estimation Based on Navigation Log.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mass of residual tumors has previously been estimated using time-series records of the position of surgical instruments acquired from neurosurgical navigation systems (navigation log). This method has been shown to be useful for rapid evaluation of residual tumors during resection. However, quantitative analysis of the method's reliability has not been sufficiently reported. The effect of poor log coverage is dominant in previous studies, in that it did not highlight other disturbance factors, such as intraoperative brain shift. We analyzed 25 patients with a high log-acquisition rate that was calculated by dividing the log-available time by the instrument-use time. We estimated the region of resection using the trajectory of surgical instrument that was extracted from the navigation log. We then calculated the residual tumor region and measured its volume as log-estimation residual tumor volume (RTV). We evaluated the correlation between the log-estimation RTV and the RTV in the post-resection magnetic resonance (MR) image. We also evaluated the accuracy of detecting the residual tumor mass using the estimated residual tumor region. The log-estimation RTV and the RTV in the post-resection MR image were significantly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.960; P <0.001). The presence of patient-wise residual tumor mass was detected with a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 92.9%. The individual residual tumor mass was detected with a positive predictive value of 72%. Estimation of residual tumor with adequate log coverage appears to be a suitable method with a high reliability. This method can support rapid decision-making during resection.
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.