ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2020
Accuracy of registrations between cone-beam computed tomography and conventional computed tomography images and dose mapping methods in RaySearch software for the bladder during brachytherapy of cervical cancer patients.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to assess selected methods of image registration available in the RaySearch software and their impact on the accuracy of mapping of doses deposited in the bladder during brachytherapy (BRT) of cervical cancer in images used during external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was based on data from ten patients. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images (BRT) were aligned with CT images (EBRT) using four registration methods: Reg_1 (rigid), Reg_2a, Reg_2b (hybrid), and Reg_3 (biomechanical). Image mapping accuracy was evaluated based on bladder's anatomy. Sørensen-Dice coefficient (DSC) values were analyzed for all the registrations. Discrepancies between triangular mesh points set on the basis of bladder contours were analyzed. Dose distributions from BRT were transformed according to registration results and mapped on CT images. Original BRT doses deposited in 2 cm
resultsMean DSC values amounted to 0.36 (Reg_1), 0.87 and 0.88 (Reg_2a and Reg_2b), and 0.97 (Reg_3). Significant differences were found between DSC for the following comparisons: Reg_3/Reg_1 (
conclusionsBiomechanical registration (Reg_3) enabled the most accurate alignment between CBCT and CT images. Satisfactory registration results of anatomical structures do not guarantee a correct mapping of primary BRT doses on the bladder delineated on CT images during EBRT. The results of dose transformation based on biomechanical registration had an error of less than 5% for only 50% of the observations.
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.