ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Study of Spinal Cord Substructure Expansion Margin in Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Application of Amiodarone and Cedilan in the Treatment of Patients with Arrhythmia after Esophageal and Lung Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the setup errors and residual errors of different spinal cord parts in esophageal cancer patients and to explore the necessity of spinal cord segmental expansion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty cases of esophageal cancer were included with 20 patients subdivided into the following groups: neck, chest and abdomen as per the treatment site. The patients underwent intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) between 2017 and 2019. Thermoplastic mask or vacuum bag were utilized for immobilization of different groups. CTVision (Siemens CT-On-Rail system) was used to acquire pre-treatment CT, and 20 consecutive pre-treatment CT datasets were collected for data analysis for each case. Images were exported to MIM (MIM Software Inc.) for processing and data analysis. Dice coefficient, maximum Hausdorff distance and centroid coordinate values between the spinal cord contours in the pre-treatment CTs and the planning CT were calculated and extracted. The contour expansion margin value is calculated as M
resultsFor neck, chest, abdominal segments of the spinal cord, the mean Dice coefficients (± SD) are 0.73 ± 0.06, 0.80 ± 0.06, 0.82 ± 0.06, the maximum Hausdorff distance residual error (± SD) are 4.46 ± 0.55, 3.49 ± 0.53, 3.46 ± 0.69 mm, and the mean centroid coordinate residual error (± SD) are 2.40 ± 0.53, 1.66 ± 0.47, 2.14 ± 0.95 mm, respectively. The calculated margin using residual centroid method in medial-lateral (ML), anterior-posterior (AP), and cranial-caudal (CC) direction of spinal cord in neck, chest, abdominal segments are 3.86, 5.37, 6.36 mm, 3.45, 3.83, 4.51 mm, 4.05, 4.83, 7.06 mm, respectively, and the calculated margin using residual Hausdorff method are 3.10, 5.33 and 6.15 mm, 3.30, 3.77, 4.61 mm, 3.35, 4.76, 6.87 mm, respectively.
conclusionThe setup errors and residual errors are different in each segment of the spinal cord. Different margins expansion should be applied to different segment of spinal cord.
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.