Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36299279›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023

Impact of endorectal filling on interobserver variability of MRI based rectal primary tumor delineation.

Monica Lo Russo, Marcel Nachbar, Aisling Barry, Shree Bhide, Amy Chang, William Hall, Martijn Intven, Corrie Marijnen, Femke Peters, Bruce Minsky and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

22 authors.

Monica Lo RussoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Marcel NachbarSection for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany.
Aisling BarryRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shree BhideRadiotherapy and Imaging, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Amy ChangHong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
William HallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Martijn IntvenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Corrie MarijnenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Femke PetersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bruce MinskyDepartment of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Paul B RomesserDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Reith SarkarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Alex TanGenesisCare, Australia.
Simon BoekeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Daniel WegenerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Sarah ButzerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Jessica BoldtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Sergios GatidisDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Konstantin NikolaouDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Daniela ThorwarthSection for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany.
Daniel ZipsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Cihan GaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Investigating the contribution of cellular senescence to the efficacy of radiation therapy.K08CA255574 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI ROMESSER, PAUL BERNARD · 2021 to 2025
$1.2M
Cancer Research UK 28724NCI NIH HHS K08 CA255574NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Online adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy allows for the reduction of safety margins in dose escalated treatment of rectal tumors. With the use of smaller margins, precise tumor delineation becomes more critical. In the present study we investigated the impact of rectal ultrasound gel filling on interobserver variability in delineation of primary rectal tumor volumes. Methods: Six patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were scanned on a 1.5 T MRI-Linac without (MRI_e) and with application of 100 cc of ultrasound gel transanally (MRI_f). Eight international radiation oncologists expert in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers delineated the gross tumor volume (GTV) on both MRI scans. MRI_f scans were provided to the participating centers after MRI_e scans had been returned. Interobserver variability was analyzed by either comparing the observers' delineations with a reference delineation (approach 1) and by building all possible pairs between observers (approach 2). Dice Similarity Index (DICE) and 95 % Hausdorff-Distance (95 %HD) were calculated. Results: Rectal ultrasound gel filling was well tolerated by all patients. Overall, interobserver agreement was superior in MRI_f scans based on median DICE (0.81 vs 0.74, p < 0.005 for approach 1 and 0.76 vs 0.64, p < 0.0001 for approach 2) and 95 %HD (6.9 mm vs 4.2 mm for approach 1, p = 0.04 and 8.9 mm vs 6.1 mm, p = 0.04 for approach 2). Delineated median tumor volumes and inter-quartile ranges were 26.99 cc [18.01-50.34 cc] in MRI_e and 44.20 [19.72-61.59 cc] in MRI_f scans respectively, p = 0.012. Conclusions: Although limited by the small number of patients, in this study the application of rectal ultrasound gel resulted in higher interobserver agreement in rectal GTV delineation. The endorectal gel filling might be a useful tool for future dose escalation strategies.

Indexed as

Inter-observer agreementMR-guided radiotherapyMRI-LinacRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID36299279
PMCPMC9589000

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.