Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38993288›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Geometrical accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for ocular proton therapy planning.

Lisa Klaassen, Corné Haasjes, Martijn Hol, Patricia Cambraia Lopes, Kees Spruijt, Christal van de Steeg-Henzen, Khanh Vu, Pauline Bakker, Coen Rasch, Berit Verbist and 1 more

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Quantitative Perfusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Uveal Melanoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    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

11 authors.

Lisa KlaassenLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Corné HaasjesLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Martijn HolLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Patricia Cambraia LopesHollandPTC, Delft, the Netherlands.
Kees SpruijtHollandPTC, Delft, the Netherlands.
Christal van de Steeg-HenzenLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Khanh VuLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Pauline BakkerLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Coen RaschLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Berit VerbistLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Jan-Willem BeenakkerLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in treatment preparation of ocular proton therapy, but its spatial accuracy might be limited by geometric distortions due to susceptibility artefacts. A correct geometry of the MR images is paramount since it defines where the dose will be delivered. In this study, we assessed the geometrical accuracy of ocular MRI. Materials & methods: A dedicated ocular 3 T MRI protocol, with localized shimming and increased gradients, was compared to computed tomography (CT) and X-ray images in a phantom and in 15 uveal melanoma patients. The MRI protocol contained three-dimensional T2-weighted and T1-weighted sequences with an isotropic reconstruction resolution of 0.3-0.4 mm. Tantalum clips were identified by three observers and clip-clip distances were compared between T2-weighted and T1-weighted MRI, CT and X-ray images for the phantom and between MRI and X-ray images for the patients. Results: Interobserver variability was below 0.35 mm for the phantom and 0.30(T1)/0.61(T2) mm in patients. Mean absolute differences between MRI and reference were below 0.27 ± 0.16 mm and 0.32 ± 0.23 mm for the phantom and in patients, respectively. In patients, clip-clip distances were slightly larger on MRI than on X-ray images (mean difference T1: 0.11 ± 0.38 mm, T2: 0.10 ± 0.44 mm). Differences did not increase at larger distances and did not correlate to interobserver variability. Conclusions: A dedicated ocular MRI protocol can produce images of the eye with a geometrical accuracy below half the MRI acquisition voxel (<0.4 mm). Therefore, these images can be used for ocular proton therapy planning, both in the current model-based workflow and in proposed three-dimensional MR-based workflows.

Indexed as

MRIProton therapyTreatment planningUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID38993288
PMCPMC11234150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.