Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38414521›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Evaluation of a deep learning magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction method for synthetic computed tomography generation in prostate radiotherapy.

Lars E Olsson, Sacha Af Wetterstedt, Jonas Scherman, Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson, Emilia Persson, Christian Jamtheim Gustafsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. 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. Review
  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

6 authors.

Lars E OlssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 5, Lund 221 85, Sweden.
Sacha Af WetterstedtRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 5, Lund 221 85, Sweden.
Jonas SchermanRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 5, Lund 221 85, Sweden.
Adalsteinn GunnlaugssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 5, Lund 221 85, Sweden.
Emilia PerssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 5, Lund 221 85, Sweden.
Christian Jamtheim GustafssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 5, Lund 221 85, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) only radiotherapy computed tomography (CT) is excluded. The method relies entirely on synthetic CT images generated from MRI. This study evaluates the compatibility of a commercial synthetic CT (sCT) with an accelerated commercial deep learning reconstruction (DLR) in MRI-only prostate radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: For a group of 24 patients (cohort 1) the effects of DLR were studied in isolation. MRI data were reconstructed conventionally and with DLR from identical k-space data, and sCTs were generated for both reconstructions. The sCT quality, Hounsfield Unit (HU) and dosimetric impact were investigated. In another group of 15 patients (cohort 2) effects on sCT generation using accelerated MRI acquisition (40 % time reduction) reconstructed with DLR were investigated. Results: sCT images from both cohorts, generated from DLR MRI data, were of clinically expected image quality. The mean dose differences for targets and organs at risks in cohort 1 were <0.06 Gy, corresponding to a 0.1 % prescribed dose difference. Similar dose differences were observed in cohort 2. Gamma pass rates for cohort 1 were 100 % for criteria 3 %/3mm, 2 %/2mm and 1 %/1mm for all dose levels. Mean error and mean absolute error inside the body, between sCTs, averaged over all cohort 1 subjects, were -1.1 ± 0.6 [-2.4 0.2] and 2.9 ± 0.4 [2.3 3.9] HU, respectively. Conclusions: DLR was suitable for sCT generation with clinically negligible differences in HU and calculated dose compared to the conventional MRI reconstruction method. For sCT generation DLR enables scan time reduction, without compromised sCT quality.

Indexed as

Deep learning reconstructionMRIProstate cancerRadiotherapySynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID38414521
PMCPMC10897922

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.