ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2024
Comparison of two different respiratory monitoring systems with 4D-CT images for target volume definition in patients undergoing para-aortic nodal irradiation.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveToday, respiratory movement can be monitored and recorded with different methods during a simulation on a four-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) device to be used in radiotherapy planning. A synchronized respiratory monitoring system (RPM) with an externally equipped device is one of these methods. Another method is to create 4D images of the patient's breathing phases without the need for extra equipment, with an anatomy-based software program integrated into the CT device. Our aim is to compare the RPM system and the software system (Deviceless) which are two different respiratory monitoring methods used in tracking moving targets during 4D-CT imaging and to assess their clinical usability.
methodsTen patients who underwent paraaortic nodal irradiation were enrolled. The simulation was performed using intravenous contrast material on a 4D-CT device with both respiratory monitoring methods. The right/left kidneys and renal arteries were chosen as references to evaluate abdominal organ movement. It was then manually contoured one by one on both sets of images. The images were compared volumetrically and geometrically after rigid reconstruction. The similarity between the contours was determined by the Dice index. Wilcoxon test was used for statistical comparisons.
resultsThe motion of the kidneys in all three directions was found to be 0.0 cm in both methods. The shifts in the right/left renal arteries were submillimetric. The Dice index showed a high similarity in both kidney and renal artery contours.
conclusionIn our study, no difference was found between RPM and Deviceless systems used for tracking and detection of moving targets during simulation in 4D-CT. Both methods can be used safely for radiotherapy planning according to the available possibilities in the clinic.
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.