ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Inter-observer variability in library plan selection on iterative CBCT and synthetic CT images of cervical cancer patients.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptive radiotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer: a retrospective audit of two bladder filling protocols.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Inter-observer variability in library plan selection on iterative CBCT and synthetic CT images of cervical cancer patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the Library-of-Plans (LoP) approach, correct plan selection is essential for delivering radiotherapy treatment accurately. However, poor image quality of the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) may introduce inter-observer variability and thereby hamper accurate plan selection. In this study, we investigated whether new techniques to improve the CBCT image quality and improve consistency in plan selection, affects the accuracy of LoP selection in cervical cancer patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsCBCT images of 12 patients were used to investigate the inter-observer variability of plan selection based on different CBCT image types. Six observers were asked to individually select a plan based on clinical X-ray Volumetric Imaging (XVI) CBCT, iterative reconstructed CBCT (iCBCT) and synthetic CTs (sCT). Selections were performed before and after a consensus meeting with the entire group, in which guidelines were created. A scoring by all observers on the image quality and plan selection procedure was also included. For plan selection, Fleiss' kappa (κ) statistical test was used to determine the inter-observer variability within one image type.
resultsThe agreement between observers was significantly higher on sCT compared to CBCT. The consensus meeting improved the duration and inter-observer variability. In this manuscript, the guidelines attributed the overall results in the plan selection. Before the meeting, the gold standard was selected in 76% of the cases on XVI CBCT, 74% on iCBCT, and 76% on sCT. After the meeting, the gold standard was selected in 83% of the cases on XVI CBCT, 81% on iCBCT, and 90% on sCT.
conclusionThe use of sCTs can increase the agreement of plan selection among observers and the gold standard was indicated to be selected more often. It is important that clear guidelines for plan selection are implemented in order to benefit from the increased image quality, accurate selection, and decrease inter-observer variability.
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.