ArticleMedical physics2024
Validation of daily 0.35 T diffusion-weighted MRI for MRI-guided glioblastoma radiotherapy.
Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of diffusion-weighted MRI in biological image-guided radiation therapy: a roadmap.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Adaptation of an arterial spin labeling sequence for the assessment of brain perfusion on a 0.35 T MR-Linac.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Acceptance testing of a 0.35 T MR-Linac: procedures, QA baseline, and system limitations.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Multi-center diffusion-weighted MRI validation for 0.35T MR-Linac.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2026Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging-derived parameters as quantitative imaging biomarkers in magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy: a systematic review.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Open-source quality assurance for multi-parametric MRI: a diffusion analysis update for the magnetic resonance biomarker assessment software (MR-BIAS).Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sequences and Technologies in Adaptive Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Review
- Dynamics of Daily Glioblastoma Evolution During Chemoradiation Therapy on the 0.35T Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Linear Accelerator.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Relaxometry for Glioblastoma Response Assessment During Radiation Therapy on a 0.35 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linear Accelerator.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Article
- Adaptive treatment workflow and dosimetric evaluation of intracranial fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery on a low-field magnetic resonance-linear accelerator.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMRI-Linac systems enable daily diffusion-weighed imaging (DWI) MRI scans for assessing glioblastoma tumor changes with radiotherapy treatment. PURPOSE: Our study assessed the image quality of echoplanar imaging (EPI)-DWI scans compared with turbo spin echo (TSE)-DWI scans at 0.35 Tesla (T) and compared the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and distortion of EPI-DWI on 0.35 T MRI-Linac compared to high-field diagnostic MRI scanners.
methodsThe calibrated National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) Diffusion Phantom was scanned on a 0.35 T MRI-Linac, and 1.5 T and 3 T MRI with EPI-DWI. Five patients were scanned on a 0.35 T MRI-Linac with a TSE-DWI sequence, and five other patients were scanned with EPI-DWI on a 0.35 T MRI-Linac and a 3 T MRI. The quality of images was compared between the TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI on the 0.35 T MRI-Linac assessing signal-to-noise ratios and presence of artifacts. EPI-DWI ADC values and distortion magnitude were measured and compared between 0.35 T MRI-Linac and high-field MRI for both phantom and patient studies.
resultsThe average ADC differences between EPI-DWI acquired on the 0.35 T MRI-Linac, 1.5 T and 3 T MRI scanners and published references in the phantom study were 1.7%, 0.4% and 1.0%, respectively. Comparing the ADC values based on EPI-DWI in glioblastoma tumors, there was a 3.36% difference between 0.35 and 3 T measurements. Susceptibility-induced distortions in the EPI-DWI phantoms were 0.46 ± 1.51 mm for 0.35 MRI-Linac, 0.98 ± 0.51 mm for 1.5 T MRI and 1.14 ± 1.88 mm for 3 T MRI; for patients -0.47 ± 0.78 mm for 0.35 T and 1.73 ± 2.11 mm for 3 T MRIs. The mean deformable registration distortion for a phantom was 1.1 ± 0.22 mm, 3.5 ± 0.39 mm and 4.7 ± 0.37 mm for the 0.35 T MRI-Linac, 1.5 T MRI, and 3 T MRI scanners, respectively; for patients this distortion was -0.46 ± 0.57 mm for 0.35 T and 4.2 ± 0.41 mm for 3 T. EPI-DWI 0.35 T MRI-Linac images showed higher SNR and lack of artifacts compared with TSE-DWI, especially at higher b-values up to 1000 s/mm
conclusionEPI-DWI on a 0.35 T MRI-Linac showed superior image quality compared with TSE-DWI, minor and less distortions than high-field diagnostic scanners, and comparable ADC values in phantoms and glioblastoma tumors. EPI-DWI should be investigated on the 0.35 T MRI-Linac for prediction of early response in patients with glioblastoma.
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.