ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2021
The impact of image acquisition time on registration, delineation and image quality for magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating CBCT-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy for Pancreatic Cancer Using Synthetic CBCT Data.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of non-vendor magnetic resonance imaging sequences for use in bladder cancer magnetic resonance image guided radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Integrated MRI-guided radiotherapy - opportunities and challenges.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMagnetic resonance (MR) guided radiotherapy utilizes MR images for (online) plan adaptation and image guidance. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of variation in MR acquisition time and scan resolution on image quality, interobserver variation in contouring and interobserver variation in registration. MATERIALS AND
methodsNine patients with prostate cancer were included. Four T2-weighted 3D turbo spin echo (T2w 3D TSE) sequences were acquired with different acquisition times and resolutions. Two radiologists assessed image quality, conspicuity of the capsule, peripheral zone and central gland architecture and motion artefacts on a 5 point scale. Images were delineated by two radiation oncologists and interobserver variation was assessed by the 95% Hausdorff distance. Seven observers registered the MR images on the planning CT. Registrations were compared on systematic offset and interobserver variation.
resultsAcquisition times ranged between 1.3 and 6.3 min. Overall image quality and capsule definition were significantly worse for the MR sequence with an acquisition time of 1.3 min compared to the other sequences. Median 95% Hausdorff distance showed no significant differences in interobserver variation of contouring. Systematic offset and interobserver variation in registration were small (<1 mm) and of no clinical significance.
conclusionsOur results can be used to effectively shorten overall fraction time for online adaptive MR guided radiotherapy by optimising the imaging sequence used for registration. From the sequences studied, a sequence of 3.1 min with anisotropic voxels of 1.2 × 1.2 × 2.4 mm
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.