Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36386446›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022

Automatic Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance-based measurements of tumour prominence and basal diameter for treatment planning of uveal melanoma.

Lisa Klaassen, Myriam G Jaarsma-Coes, Berit M Verbist, T H Khanh Vu, Marina Marinkovic, Coen R N Rasch, Gregorius P M Luyten, Jan-Willem M Beenakker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of MRI Safety of Ru-106 Eye Applicators.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Quantitative Perfusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Uveal Melanoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Lisa KlaassenLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
Myriam G Jaarsma-CoesLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
Berit M VerbistLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Radiology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
T H Khanh VuLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marina MarinkovicLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
Coen R N RaschLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
Gregorius P M LuytenLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
Jan-Willem M BeenakkerLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Three-dimensional (3D) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to complement conventional two-dimensional ultrasound in the assessment of tumour dimension measurement of uveal melanoma. However, the lack of definitions of the 3D measurements of these tumour dimensions hinders further adaptation of MRI in ocular radiotherapy planning. In this study, we composed 3D MR-based definitions of tumour prominence and basal diameter and compared them to conventional ultrasound. Materials and methods: Tumours were delineated on 3DT2 and contrast-enhanced 3DT1 (T1gd) MRI for 25 patients. 3D definitions of tumour prominence and diameter were composed and evaluated automatically on the T1gd and T2 contours. Automatic T1gd measurements were compared to manual MRI measurements, to automatic T2 measurements and to manual ultrasound measurements. Results: Prominence measurements were similar for all modalities (median absolute difference 0.3 mm). Automatic T1gd diameter measurements were generally larger than manual MRI, automatic T2 and manual ultrasound measurements (median absolute differences of 0.5, 1.6 and 1.1 mm respectively), mainly due to difficulty defining the axis of the largest diameter. Largest differences between ultrasound and MRI for both prominence and diameter were found in anteriorly located tumours (up to 1.6 and 4.5 mm respectively), for which the tumour extent could not entirely be visualized with ultrasound. Conclusions: The proposed 3D definitions for tumour prominence and diameter agreed well with ultrasound measurements for tumours for which the extent was visible on ultrasound. 3D MRI measurements generally provided larger diameter measurements than ultrasound. In anteriorly located tumours, the MRI measurements were considered more accurate than conventional ultrasound.

Indexed as

Magnetic resonance imagingOcular oncologyUltrasoundUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID36386446
PMCPMC9649381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.