ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of superficial xenograft volume estimation by ultrasound and caliper against MRI in a longitudinal pre-clinical radiotherapeutic setting.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restriction-Weighted Q-Space Trajectory Imaging (ResQ): Toward Mapping Diffusion-Time Effects With Tensor-Valued Diffusion Encoding in Human Prostate Cancer Xenografts.NMR in biomedicine · 2026Article
- Fractionation gives therapeutic benefit in animal model of [EJNMMI research · 2026Article
- Ultrasound imaging in orthotopic hepatocellular carcinoma models: Promise, practicality, and points for refinement.World journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- Ultrasound imaging-guided protocol for monitoring tumor growth in orthotopic rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of hepatology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate tumor volume estimation is important for evaluating the response to radionuclide therapy and external beam radiotherapy as well as to other pharmaceuticals. A common method for monitoring the growth of subcutaneous tumors in pre-clinical models and assessing the treatment response is to measure the tumor length and width by external calipers to estimate its volume. This procedure relies on an assumption of a spheroidal tumor shape wherein the tumor depth equals the width and can yield considerably inaccuracies. Ultrasound imaging is a non-invasive technique that can measure all three axes of the tumor and might be an alternative to caliper measurement with potentially greater accuracy and comparable ease-of-use and throughput. Both 2D and 3D ultrasound imaging are possible, the former offering short scan times without the need for anesthesia and heating-valuable factors for longitudinal studies in large animal cohorts. Nevertheless, tumor volume estimation accuracy by 2D ultrasound imaging has seen limited investigation. In this study we have evaluated the accuracy of tumor volume estimation by caliper and 2D ultrasound with comparisons to reference measurements by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a pre-clinical model of prostate cancer treated with either external beam radiotherapy, radionuclide therapy, or no treatment.
resultsTumor volumes were measured longitudinally in 29 mice by caliper, ultrasound, and MRI before and after external beam radiotherapy, [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 radionuclide therapy, or no treatment. Caliper measurements had a marked bias, overestimating the tumor volumes by a median of 150% compared to MRI. Ultrasound measurements were markedly more accurate, with a median bias of -21% compared to MRI.
conclusionUltrasound imaging is a reliable and accurate method for tumor volume estimation in pre-clinical models of radiotherapy, whereas caliper measurements are prone to overestimation.
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.