Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34258411›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2021

Factors affecting accuracy and precision in ultrasound guided radiotherapy.

Alexander Grimwood, Karen Thomas, Sally Kember, Georgina Aldis, Rebekah Lawes, Beverley Brigden, Jane Francis, Emer Henegan, Melanie Kerner, Louise Delacroix and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to trial NCT02388308 (Evaluation of Clarity Ultrasound Guidance for Prostate Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

NCT02388308 completednot on this map

Evaluation of Clarity Ultrasound Guidance for Prostate Therapy

TypeobservationalSponsorInstitute of Cancer Research, United KingdomRan2015 to 2018Enrolled61ConditionsProstate CancerArmsClarity ultrasound
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander GrimwoodDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Karen ThomasDepartment of Statistics and Computing, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Sally KemberDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Georgina AldisDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Rebekah LawesDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Beverley BrigdenDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Jane FrancisDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Emer HeneganDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Melanie KernerDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Louise DelacroixDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Alexandra GordonDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Alison TreeDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Emma J HarrisDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Helen A McNairDepartment of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Radiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, United Kingdom.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28284Department of Health ICA-SCL-2018-04-ST2-002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeTransperineal ultrasound (TPUS) is used clinically for directly assessing prostate motion. Factors affecting accuracy and precision in TPUS motion estimation must be assessed to realise its full potential. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were imaged using volumetric TPUS during the Clarity-Pro trial (NCT02388308). Prostate motion was measured online at patient set-up and offline by experienced observers. Cone beam CT with markers was used as a comparator and observer performance was also quantified. The influence of different clinical factors was examined to establish specific recommendations towards efficacious ultrasound guided radiotherapy.

resultsFrom 330 fractions in 22 patients, offline observer random errors were 1.5 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.9 mm (left-right, superior-inferior, anteroposterior respectively). Errors increased in fractions exhibiting poor image quality to 3.3 mm, 3.3 mm and 6.8 mm. Poor image quality was associated with inconsistent probe placement, large anatomical changes and unfavourable imaging conditions within the patient. Online matching exhibited increased observer errors of: 3.2 mm, 2.9 mm and 4.7 mm. Four patients exhibited large systematic residual errors, of which three had poor quality images. Patient habitus showed no correlation with observer error, residual error, or image quality.

conclusionsTPUS offers the unique potential to directly assess inter- and intra-fraction motion on conventional linacs. Inconsistent image quality, inexperienced operators and the pressures of the clinical environment may degrade precision and accuracy. Experienced operators are essential and cross-centre standards for training and QA should be established that build upon current guidance. Greater use of automation technologies may further minimise uncertainties.

Indexed as

Image guidanceInter observer errorProstate cancerTreatment marginsUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID34258411
PMCPMC8254201
OpenAlexW3172319679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.