ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021
Investigation of the clinical inter-observer bias in prostate fiducial marker image registration between CT and MR images.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of platinum and gold fiducial markers for prostate radiotherapy: a phantom study.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- PrecisionPro Fusion: Clinical validation of an automated, rigid, Prostate-Specific MRI-CT Fusion system for prostate radiotherapy planning.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Implant geometry and detection rates of prostate fiducial markers after transrectal ultrasound-guided perineal implantation for image-guided 6D-tracking in robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025Article
- LUND-PROBE - LUND Prostate Radiotherapy Open Benchmarking and Evaluation dataset.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a deep learning magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction method for synthetic computed tomography generation in prostate radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Prostate volume analysis in image registration for prostate cancer care: a verification study.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023Article
- Cone beam computed tomography image guidance within a magnetic resonance imaging-only planning workflow.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Geometric impact and dose estimation of on-patient placement of a lightweight receiver coil in a clinical magnetic resonance imaging-only radiotherapy workflow for prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided vs Computed Tomography-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: The MIRAGE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA oncology · 2023Article
- MRI-only radiotherapy from an economic perspective: Can new techniques in prostate cancer treatment be cost saving?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- The future of MRI in radiation therapy: Challenges and opportunities for the MR community.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Prostate SBRT Using Non-adaptive MR-Guided Radiotherapy.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeInter-modality image registration between computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) images is associated with systematic uncertainties and the magnitude of these uncertainties is not well documented. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential uncertainty of gold fiducial marker (GFM) registration for localized prostate cancer and to estimate the inter-observer bias in a clinical setting.
methodsFour experienced observers registered CT and MR images for 42 prostate cancer patients. Manual GFM identification was followed by a landmark-based registration. The absolute difference between observers in GFM identification and the displacement of the clinical target volume (CTV) was investigated. The CTV center of mass (CoM) vector displacements, DICE-index and Hausdorff distances for the observer registrations were compared against a clinical baseline registration. The time allocated for the manual registrations was compared.
resultsAbsolute difference in GFM identification between observers ranged from 0.0 to 3.0 mm. The maximum CTV CoM displacement from the clinical baseline was 3.1 mm. Displacements larger than or equal to 1 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm were 46%, 18% and 4%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected between observers in terms of CTV displacement. Median DICE-index and Hausdorff distance for the CTV, with their respective ranges were 0.94 [0.70-1.00] and 2.5 mm [0.7-8.7].
conclusionsRegistration of CT and MR images using GFMs for localized prostate cancer patients was subject to inter-observer bias on an individual patient level. A CTV displacement as large as 3 mm occurred for individual patients. These results show that GFM registration in a clinical setting is associated with uncertainties, which motivates the removal of inter-modality registrations in the radiotherapy workflow and a transition to an MRI-only workflow for localized prostate cancer.
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.