Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35190891›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Synthetic CT for the planning of MR-HIFU treatment of bone metastases in pelvic and femoral bones: a feasibility study.

Beatrice Lena, Mateusz C Florkow, Cyril J Ferrer, Marijn van Stralen, Peter R Seevinck, Evert-Jan P A Vonken, Martijn F Boomsma, Derk J Slotman, Max A Viergever, Chrit T W Moonen and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. MR Imaging of the Pelvic Bones: The Current and Cutting-Edge Techniques.Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology · 2022
    Review
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Beatrice Lena *Image Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Q.02.4.45, 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. b.lena@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9283-5918
Mateusz C Florkow *Image Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Q.02.4.45, 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.florkow@umcutrecht.nl.
Cyril J FerrerDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan, 100 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marijn van StralenImage Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Q.02.4.45, 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter R SeevinckImage Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Q.02.4.45, 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Evert-Jan P A VonkenDivision of Imaging and Oncology, Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan, 100 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Martijn F BoomsmaDepartment of Radiology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Derk J SlotmanDepartment of Radiology, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Max A ViergeverImage Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Q.02.4.45, 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Chrit T W MoonenDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan, 100 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Clemens BosDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan, 100 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Lambertus W BartelsImage Sciences Institute, Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Q.02.4.45, 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLIsala · NL

Funding

Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen 15179Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen 15479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesVisualization of the bone distribution is an important prerequisite for MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MRI-HIFU) treatment planning of bone metastases. In this context, we evaluated MRI-based synthetic CT (sCT) imaging for the visualization of cortical bone.

methodsMR and CT images of nine patients with pelvic and femoral metastases were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The metastatic lesions were osteolytic, osteoblastic or mixed. sCT were generated from pre-treatment or treatment MR images using a UNet-like neural network. sCT was qualitatively and quantitatively compared to CT in the bone (pelvis or femur) containing the metastasis and in a region of interest placed on the metastasis itself, through mean absolute difference (MAD), mean difference (MD), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and root mean square surface distance (RMSD).

resultsThe dataset consisted of 3 osteolytic, 4 osteoblastic and 2 mixed metastases. For most patients, the general morphology of the bone was well represented in the sCT images and osteolytic, osteoblastic and mixed lesions could be discriminated. Despite an average timespan between MR and CT acquisitions of 61 days, in bone, the average (± standard deviation) MAD was 116 ± 26 HU, MD - 14 ± 66 HU, DSC 0.85 ± 0.05, and RMSD 2.05 ± 0.48 mm and, in the lesion, MAD was 132 ± 62 HU, MD - 31 ± 106 HU, DSC 0.75 ± 0.2, and RMSD 2.73 ± 2.28 mm.

conclusionsSynthetic CT images adequately depicted the cancellous and cortical bone distribution in the different lesion types, which shows its potential for MRI-HIFU treatment planning. KEY POINTS: • Synthetic computed tomography was able to depict bone distribution in metastatic lesions. • Synthetic computed tomography images intrinsically aligned with treatment MR images may have the potential to facilitate MR-HIFU treatment planning of bone metastases, by combining visualization of soft tissues and cancellous and cortical bone.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingFeasibility StudiesFemurHumansPelvisRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedCTHigh-intensity focused ultrasound ablationMRINeoplasm metastasisSynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID35190891
PMCPMC9213310
OpenAlexW4212820822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.