Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33374176›Full record

ReviewCancers2020

Clinical Performance and Future Potential of Magnetic Resonance Thermometry in Hyperthermia.

Theresa V Feddersen, Juan A Hernandez-Tamames, Martine Franckena, Gerard C van Rhoon, Margarethus M Paulides

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Image-Based Monitoring of Thermal Ablation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. A patterns of care analysis of hyperthermia in combination with radio(chemo)therapy or chemotherapy in European clinical centers.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Fast, interleaved, Look-Locker-based TNMR in biomedicine · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Theresa V FeddersenDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3695-8360
Juan A Hernandez-TamamesDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0027-9518
Martine FranckenaDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerard C van RhoonDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7365-5783
Margarethus M PaulidesDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5891-2139

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 11368
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hyperthermia treatments in the clinic rely on accurate temperature measurements to guide treatments and evaluate clinical outcome. Currently, magnetic resonance thermometry (MRT) is the only clinical option to non-invasively measure 3D temperature distributions. In this review, we evaluate the status quo and emerging approaches in this evolving technology for replacing conventional dosimetry based on intraluminal or invasively placed probes. First, we define standardized MRT performance thresholds, aiming at facilitating transparency in this field when comparing MR temperature mapping performance for the various scenarios that hyperthermia is currently applied in the clinic. This is based upon our clinical experience of treating nearly 4000 patients with superficial and deep hyperthermia. Second, we perform a systematic literature review, assessing MRT performance in (I) clinical and (II) pre-clinical papers. From (I) we identify the current clinical status of MRT, including the problems faced and from (II) we extract promising new techniques with the potential to accelerate progress. From (I) we found that the basic requirements for MRT during hyperthermia in the clinic are largely met for regions without motion, for example extremities. In more challenging regions (abdomen and thorax), progress has been stagnating after the clinical introduction of MRT-guided hyperthermia over 20 years ago. One clear difficulty for advancement is that performance is not or not uniformly reported, but also that studies often omit important details regarding their approach. Motion was found to be the common main issue hindering accurate MRT. Based on (II), we reported and highlighted promising developments to tackle the issues resulting from motion (directly or indirectly), including new developments as well as optimization of already existing strategies. Combined, these may have the potential to facilitate improvement in MRT in the form of more stable and reliable measurements via better stability and accuracy.

Indexed as

hyperthermiamagnetic resonance imagingMRTtemperature mappingthermal therapythermometry

Identifiers

PMID33374176
PMCPMC7794787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.