Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35992838›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Reduction of inter-observer variability using MRI and CT fusion in delineating of primary tumor for radiotherapy in lung cancer with atelectasis.

Hongjiao Zhang, Chengrui Fu, Min Fan, Liyong Lu, Yiru Chen, Chengxin Liu, Hongfu Sun, Qian Zhao, Dan Han, Baosheng Li and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Research progress on the identification of central lung cancer and atelectasis using multimodal imaging].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023
    Review
  9. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hongjiao ZhangShandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Chengrui FuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Min FanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Liyong LuWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yiru ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Chengxin LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Hongfu SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Qian ZhaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Dan HanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Baosheng LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Wei HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Shandong First Medical University · CNShandong Tumor Hospital · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the difference between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in delineating the target area of lung cancer with atelectasis. Method: A retrospective analysis was performed on 15 patients with lung cancer accompanied by atelectasis. All positioning images were transferred to Eclipse treatment planning systems (TPSs). Six MRI sequences (T1WI, T1WI+C, T1WI+C Delay, T1WI+C 10 minutes, T2WI, DWI) were registered with positioning CT. Five radiation oncologists delineated the tumor boundary to obtain the gross tumor volume (GTV). Conformity index (CI) and dice coefficient (DC) were used to measure differences among observers. Results: The differences in delineation mean volumes, CI, and DC among CT and MRIs were significant. Multiple comparisons were made between MRI sequences and CT. Among them, DWI, T2WI, and T1WI+C 10 minutes sequences were statistically significant with CT in mean volumes, DC, and CI. The mean volume of DWI, T2WI, and T1WI+C 10 minutes sequence in the target area is significantly smaller than that on the CT sequence, but the consistency is higher than that of CT sequences. Conclusions: The recognition of atelectasis by MRI was better than that by CT, which could reduce interobserver variability of primary tumor delineation in lung cancer with atelectasis. Among them, DWI, T2WI, T1WI+C 10 minutes may be a better choice to improve the GTV delineation of lung cancer patients with atelectasis.

Indexed as

computed tomographylung neoplasmsmagnetic resonance imagingpulmonary atelectasisradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35992838
PMCPMC9381816
OpenAlexW4289516905

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.