ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2021
Determination of acceptance criteria for geometric accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging scanners used in radiotherapy planning.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- AAPM medical physics practice guideline 13.a: HDR brachytherapy, part A.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Guideline
- Evaluation and comparison of synthetic computed tomography algorithms with 3T MRI for prostate radiotherapy: AI-based versus bulk density method.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Geometrical accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for ocular proton therapy planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Geometric distortion caused by metallic femoral head prosthesis in prostate cancer imaging on an MR Linac: in-vivo measurements of spatial deformation.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Impact of magnetic resonance imaging-related geometric distortion of dose distribution in fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
- Motion modeling from 4D MR images of liver simulating phantom.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMagnetic resonance imaging is increasingly used in radiotherapy planning; yet, the performance of the utilized scanners is rarely regulated by any authority. The aim of this study was to determine the geometric accuracy of several magnetic resonance imaging scanners used for radiotherapy planning, and to establish acceptance criteria for such scanners. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe geometric accuracy of five different scanners was measured with three sequences using a commercial large-field-of-view phantom. The distortion magnitudes were determined in spherical volumes around the scanner isocenter and in cylindrical volumes along scanner
resultsFor all scanners and sequences except one, the mean and median distortion magnitude was <1 mm and <2 mm in spherical volumes with diameters of 400 mm and 500 mm, respectively. For all sequences maximum distortion was <2 mm in spherical volume with diameter of 300 mm. The mean standard deviation of marker-by-marker distortion magnitudes over repeated acquisitions was ≤0.6 mm with both tested sequences.
conclusionsAll tested scanners were geometrically accurate for their current use in radiotherapy planning. The acceptance criteria of geometric accuracy for regulatory inspections of a supervising authority could be set according to these results.
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.