Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33881558›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2021

Comparison of treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup in intracranial MRI radiotherapy simulation.

Vesna Mekiš, Valerija Žager Marciuš, Dominika Rogina, Laura Dolenc, Nejc Mekiš

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Synthetic CTs for MRI-only brain RT treatment: integration of immobilization systems.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vesna MekišTeleradiotherapy department, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloška cesta 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Valerija Žager MarciušTeleradiotherapy department, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloška cesta 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Dominika RoginaMedical imaging and radiotherapy department, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Zdravstvena pot 5, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Laura DolencMedical imaging and radiotherapy department, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Zdravstvena pot 5, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Nejc MekišMedical imaging and radiotherapy department, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Zdravstvena pot 5, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. nejc.mekis@zf.uni-lj.si.ORCID 0000-0002-9438-7415
University of Ljubljana · SIInstitute of Oncology Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to compare the quality of images resulting from magnetic resonance imaging of patients who underwent intracranial MRI simulation using two different setups (treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup). Due to a larger number of channels and lack of mask immobilization in the standard diagnostic setup, we would like to evaluate whether this is an appropriate technique for MRI treatment planning.

methodsIn total, 70 patients who underwent MR imaging of the brain at 1.5T were included in the study (48 for 6‑channel flex coil, 22 for 24-channel HNU face bill coil). Contrast-enhanced 3D T1w and T2 FLAIR images were acquired. Images were subjectively compared for artifact appearance and general image quality by three radiographers. Objective comparison of contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-noise ratio was also performed.

resultsFLAIR and contrast-enhanced 3D T1w images showed various artifacts, such as susceptibility and movement artifacts. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the evaluation of movement artifacts between two coils and two different immobilization methods. There were also no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the 6‑channel flex coil and 24-channel HNU face bill coil regarding qualitative general image quality and objective measures.

conclusionThere were no statistically significant differences between the occurrence of movement artifacts, overall image quality, and objective image quality in treatment position with mask immobilization and standard diagnostic setup. Based on this result, we can conclude that a standard diagnostic setup is also applicable in intracranial MRI treatment planning with no loss to image quality. Registration of the imaging plans was not performed in this study; therefore, it might still be necessary to perform measurements of tumor delineation matching and geometrical accuracy acceptance in our institution.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedBrainBrain NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleRetrospective StudiesBrain tumorsMagnetic resonance simulatorRadiotherapyTreatment immobilizationTreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID33881558
OpenAlexW3154617007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.