ArticleScientific reports2021
Histology to 3D in vivo MR registration for volumetric evaluation of MRgFUS treatment assessment biomarkers.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Design and evaluation of an open-source block face imaging system for 2D histology to magnetic resonance image registration.MethodsX · 2024Article
- A Non-Contrast Multi-Parametric MRI Biomarker for Assessment of MR-Guided Focused Ultrasound Thermal Therapies.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2024Article
- Probability of Cavitation in a Custom Iron-Based Coupling Medium for Transcranial Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Procedures.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in imaging and early cancer detection have increased interest in magnetic resonance (MR) guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) technologies for cancer treatment. MRgFUS ablation treatments could reduce surgical risks, preserve organ tissue and function, and improve patient quality of life. However, surgical resection and histological analysis remain the gold standard to assess cancer treatment response. For non-invasive ablation therapies such as MRgFUS, the treatment response must be determined through MR imaging biomarkers. However, current MR biomarkers are inconclusive and have not been rigorously evaluated against histology via accurate registration. Existing registration methods rely on anatomical features to directly register in vivo MR and histology. For MRgFUS applications in anatomies such as liver, kidney, or breast, anatomical features that are not caused by the treatment are often insufficient to drive direct registration. We present a novel MR to histology registration workflow that utilizes intermediate imaging and does not rely on anatomical MR features being visible in histology. The presented workflow yields an overall registration accuracy of 1.00 ± 0.13 mm. The developed registration pipeline is used to evaluate a common MRgFUS treatment assessment biomarker against histology. Evaluating MR biomarkers against histology using this registration pipeline will facilitate validating novel MRgFUS biomarkers to improve treatment assessment without surgical intervention. While the presented registration technique has been evaluated in a MRgFUS ablation treatment model, this technique could be potentially applied in any tissue to evaluate a variety of therapeutic options.
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.