ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021
Accuracy of an MR-only workflow for prostate radiotherapy using semi-automatically burned-in fiducial markers.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of MRI slice thickness and fiducial marker orientation on geometric accuracy in multi-echo GRE imaging for prostate radiotherapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Personalised medicine through AI-enhanced integration of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy.European radiology experimental · 2025Review
- Cross-modality 3D MRI synthesis via cycle-guided denoising diffusion probability model.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Clinical implementation of patient-specific quality assurance for synthetic computed tomography.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical Experience and Feasibility of Using 2D-kVimage Online Intervention in the Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Radiation Treatment of Prostate Cancer.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of MR-only workflow compared to current CT-based workflow for prostate radiotherapy is reduction of systematic errors in the radiotherapy chain by 2-3 mm. Nowadays, MRI is used for target delineation while CT is needed for position verification. In MR-only workflows, MRI based synthetic CT (sCT) replaces CT. Intraprostatic fiducial markers (FMs) are used as a surrogate for the position of the prostate improving targeting. However, FMs are not visible on sCT. Therefore, a semi-automatic method for burning-in FMs on sCT was developed. Accuracy of MR-only workflow using semi-automatically burned-in FMs was assessed and compared to CT/MR workflow.
methodsThirty-one prostate cancer patients receiving radiotherapy, underwent an additional MR sequence (mDIXON) to create an sCT for MR-only workflow simulation. Three sources of accuracy in the CT/MR- and MR-only workflow were investigated. To compare image registrations for target delineation, the inter-observer error (IOE) of FM-based CT-to-MR image registrations and soft-tissue-based MR-to-MR image registrations were determined on twenty patients. Secondly, the inter-observer variation of the resulting FM positions was determined on twenty patients. Thirdly, on 26 patients CBCTs were retrospectively registered on sCT with burned-in FMs and compared to CT-CBCT registrations.
resultsImage registration for target delineation shows a three times smaller IOE for MR-only workflow compared to CT/MR workflow. All observers agreed in correctly identifying all FMs for 18 out of 20 patients (90%). The IOE in CC direction of the center of mass (COM) position of the markers was within the CT slice thickness (2.5 mm), the IOE in AP and RL direction were below 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm, respectively. Registrations for IGRT position verification in MR-only workflow compared to CT/MR workflow were equivalent in RL-, CC- and AP-direction, except for a significant difference for random error in rotation.
conclusionsMR-only workflow using sCT with burned-in FMs is an improvement compared to the current CT/MR workflow, with a three times smaller inter observer error in CT-MR registration and comparable CBCT registration results between CT and sCT reference scans. Trial registry Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does apply to this study and was approved by the Medical Ethics review Committee of the Academic Medical Center. Registration number: NL65414.018.18. Date of registration: 21-08-2018.
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.