ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2019
The accuracy of Magnetic Resonance - Cone Beam Computed Tomography soft-tissue matching for prostate radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic Computed Tomography generation using deep-learning for female pelvic radiotherapy planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Cone beam computed tomography image guidance within a magnetic resonance imaging-only planning workflow.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- MRI-only radiotherapy from an economic perspective: Can new techniques in prostate cancer treatment be cost saving?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Review
- Patient position verification in magnetic-resonance imaging only radiotherapy of anal and rectal cancers.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
- Prostate Ultrahypofractionation - Rising to Challenges Presents Opportunities in the COVID-19 Era.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2021Article
- Cone beam computed tomography for dose calculation quality assurance for magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeMagnetic Resonance (MR)-Only radiotherapy requires a method for matching image with on-treatment Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching for prostate MR-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree patient cohorts were used, with all patients receiving MR and CT scans. For the first cohort (10 patients) the first fraction CBCT was automatically rigidly registered to the CT and MR scans and the MR-CT registration predicted using the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT registrations. This was compared to the automatic MR-CT registration. For the second and third cohorts (five patients each) the first fraction CBCT was independently matched to the CT and MR by four radiographers, the MR-CBCT and CT-CBCT matches compared and the inter-observer variability assessed. The second cohort used a CT-based structure set and the third a MR-based structure set with the MR relabelled as a 'CT'.
resultsThe mean difference between predicted and actual MR-CT registrations was
conclusionsMR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is not significantly different to CT-CBCT. Relabelling the MR as a 'CT' does not appear to change the automatic registration. This suggests that MR-CBCT soft-tissue matching is feasible and accurate.
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.