Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35171511›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2022

A dual-supervised deformation estimation model (DDEM) for constructing ultra-quality 4D-MRI based on a commercial low-quality 4D-MRI for liver cancer radiation therapy.

Haonan Xiao, Ruiyan Ni, Shaohua Zhi, Wen Li, Chenyang Liu, Ge Ren, Xinzhi Teng, Weiwei Liu, Weihu Wang, Yibao Zhang and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

16 authors.

Haonan XiaoDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Ruiyan NiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Shaohua ZhiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Wen LiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Chenyang LiuDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Ge RenDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Xinzhi TengDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Weiwei LiuKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Weihu WangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Yibao ZhangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Hao WuKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Ho-Fun Victor LeeDepartment of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Lai-Yin Andy CheungDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Hing-Chiu Charles ChangDepartment of Radiology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Tian LiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Jing CaiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

Toward precision radiotherapy: Physiological modeling of respiratory motion based on ultra-quality 4D-MRIR01CA226899 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI CAI, JING, MILLER, G. WILSON · 2019 to 2023
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA226899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost available four-dimensional (4D)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are limited by insufficient image quality and long acquisition times or require specially designed sequences or hardware that are not available in the clinic. These limitations have greatly hindered the clinical implementation of 4D-MRI. PURPOSE: This study aims to develop a fast ultra-quality (UQ) 4D-MRI reconstruction method using a commercially available 4D-MRI sequence and dual-supervised deformation estimation model (DDEM).

methodsThirty-nine patients receiving radiotherapy for liver tumors were included. Each patient was scanned using a time-resolved imaging with interleaved stochastic trajectories (TWIST)-lumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) MRI sequence to acquire 4D-magnetic resonance (MR) images. They also received 3D T1-/T2-weighted MRI scans as prior images, and UQ 4D-MRI at any instant was considered a deformation of them. A DDEM was developed to obtain a 4D deformable vector field (DVF) from 4D-MRI data, and the prior images were deformed using this 4D-DVF to generate UQ 4D-MR images. The registration accuracies of the DDEM, VoxelMorph (normalized cross-correlation [NCC] supervised), VoxelMorph (end-to-end point error [EPE] supervised), and the parametric total variation (pTV) algorithm were compared. Tumor motion on UQ 4D-MRI was evaluated quantitatively using region of interest (ROI) tracking errors, while image quality was evaluated using the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), lung-liver edge sharpness, and perceptual blur metric (PBM).

resultsThe registration accuracy of the DDEM was significantly better than those of VoxelMorph (NCC supervised), VoxelMorph (EPE supervised), and the pTV algorithm (all, p < 0.001), with an inference time of 69.3 ± 5.9 ms. UQ 4D-MRI yielded ROI tracking errors of 0.79 ± 0.65, 0.50 ± 0.55, and 0.51 ± 0.58 mm in the superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and mid-lateral directions, respectively. From the original 4D-MRI to UQ 4D-MRI, the CNR increased from 7.25 ± 4.89 to 18.86 ± 15.81; the lung-liver edge full-width-at-half-maximum decreased from 8.22 ± 3.17 to 3.65 ± 1.66 mm in the in-plane direction and from 8.79 ± 2.78 to 5.04 ± 1.67 mm in the cross-plane direction, and the PBM decreased from 0.68 ± 0.07 to 0.38 ± 0.01.

conclusionThis novel DDEM method successfully generated UQ 4D-MR images based on a commercial 4D-MRI sequence. It shows great promise for improving liver tumor motion management during radiation therapy.

Indexed as

Liver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMotion4D-MRIdeep learningdeformable image registrationmotion management

Identifiers

PMID35171511
PMCPMC9200368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.