ArticleCancer management and research2021
Verification of Guiding Needle Placement by Registered Ultrasound Image During Combined Intracavitary/Interstitial Gynecologic Brachytherapy.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Approach to In Vivo EPR Spectroscopy for Repeatable Assessments of Oxygenation Levels in Tumors at Any Depth: Preliminary Feasibility Studies Utilizing a Multisite Oxygen Sensor Inside HDR Brachytherapy Needles.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Validation of guiding needle placement using registered ultrasound imaging for gynecologic brachytherapy in a simulated pelvic Phantom.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- High-Dose-Rate Three-Dimensional Image-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy (3D IGABT) for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC): A Narrative Review on Imaging Modality and Clinical Evidence.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Application of three-dimensional multi-imaging combination in brachytherapy of cervical cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur previous research demonstrated that under ideal conditions, rigid registration between MRI images and US images had high accuracy for real-time image guidance. The work presented in this paper focused on the application of the previously established procedures to a new context, including preoperative CT images. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used a template to calibrate the US probe and completed the registration between preoperative CT images and US images. Marker experiments on the accuracy of real-time needle trajectories in CT images were performed using micro electromagnetic sensors. Pelvic phantom experiments were carried out to test the registration accuracy between CT and US images, in addition to registration accuracy between US images and real-time needle trajectories (real-time space model).
resultsThe US probe calibration error in CT images was 0.879 ± 0.149 mm. The difference of registration between US images and CT images was 0.935 ± 0.166 mm in the axial plane (n = 30) and 0.916 ± 0.143 mm in the sagittal plane (n =12). The difference of registration between US images and the needle's real-time trajectories was 0.951 ± 0.202 mm.
conclusionUnder ideal conditions, rigid registration between CT images and US images had high accuracy for real-time image guidance.
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.