ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2022
Utility of deformable image registration for adaptive prostate cancer treatment. Analysis and comparison of two commercially available algorithms.
Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2022. 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.
- Article
- 3D-WDA-PMorph: Efficient 3D MRI/TRUS Prostate Registration using Transformer-CNN Network and Wavelet-3D-Depthwise-Attention.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to assess and compare the capabilities of two commercially available deformable image registration algorithms implemented in Raystation 9A (A MATERIAL AND
methodsTen patients were retrospectively selected from a group treated for localized prostate cancer. The propagation of rectum contours was analyzed in a set of CT-CBCT pairs. Two independent observers carried out qualitative analysis using the two-level descriptive scale (meet/fail). Quantitative analysis was done using landmark points distances based on implanted markers as navigation points and differently obtained contours (manually and automatically using DIR algorithms). Quantitative analysis was taken on sets preselected by qualitative analysis.
resultsQualitative analysis shows that 83.7% of the rectum contours were scored identically (meet or fail) for both algorithms, from which 53.5% and 55.8% are failed results for A
conclusionsIn both tested algorithms, neither effectiveness nor measured uncertainties in the propagation of rectum contour process in prostate patient cases were satisfactory. Careful selection of input images followed by case/set-based verification of every deformable registration is a substantial step to avoid inappropriate results.
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.