ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023
Usability of magnetic resonance images acquired at a novel low-field 0.55 T scanner for brain radiotherapy treatment planning.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cartesian MaxGIRF: Model-based EPI reconstruction incorporating gradient nonlinearity and concomitant field effects.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Characterization and inter-scanner reproducibility of geometric distortion on a small footprint, high-performance, head-specific 0.5 T scanner.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Quality assurance and temporal stability of a 1.5 T MRI scanner for MR-guided Photon and Particle Therapy.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- [Application of new imaging modalities for brachytherapy of cancer patients].Magyar onkologia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may offer specific advantages over high-field MRI, e.g. lower susceptibility-dependent distortions and simpler installation. The study aim was to evaluate if a novel 0.55 T MRI scanner provides sufficient image accuracy and quality for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning. Material and methods: The geometric accuracy of images acquired at a low-field MRI scanner was evaluated in phantom measurements regarding gradient non-linearity-related distortions. Patient-induced B0-susceptibility changes were investigated via B0-field-mapping in ten volunteers. Patients were positioned in RT-setup using a 3D-printed insert for the head/neck-coil that was tested for sufficient signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). The suitability of the MRI-system for detection of metastases was evaluated in eleven patients. In comparison to diagnostic images, acquired at ≥1.5 T, three physicians evaluated the detectability of metastases by counting them in low- and high-field-images, respectively. Results: The phantom measurements showed a high imaging fidelity after 3D-distortion-correction with (1.2 ± 0.9) mm geometric distortion in 10 cm radius from isocentre. At the edges remaining distortions were greater than at 1.5 T. The mean susceptibility-induced distortions in the head were (0.05 ± 0.05) mm and maximum 0.69 mm. SNR analysis showed that optimised positioning of RT-patients without signal loss in the head/neck-coil was possible with the RT-insert. No significant differences (p = 0.48) in detectability of metastases were found. Conclusion: The 0.55 T MRI system provided sufficiently geometrically accurate and high-resolution images that can be used for RT-planning for brain metastases. Hence, modern low-field MRI may contribute to simply access MRI for RT-planning after further investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.