ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Accuracy of four models and update strategies to estimate liver tumor motion from external respiratory motion.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A glimpse into the CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system: technical specifications and developments during thirty years.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Beyond the snapshot: continuous optical surface monitoring reveals non-linear temporal dynamics and postural stability window in free-breathing breast radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study investigates different strategies for estimating internal liver tumor motion during radiotherapy based on continuous monitoring of external respiratory motion combined with sparse internal imaging. Methods: Fifteen patients underwent three-fraction stereotactic liver radiotherapy. The 3D internal tumor motion (INT) was monitored by electromagnetic transponders while a camera monitored the external marker block motion (EXT). The ability of four external-internal correlation models (ECM) to estimate INT as function of EXT was investigated: a simple linear model (ECM1), an augmented linear model (ECM2), an augmented quadratic model (ECM3), and an extended quadratic model (ECM4). Each ECM was constructed by fitting INT and EXT during the first 60s of each fraction. The fit accuracy was calculated as the root-mean-square error (RMSE) between ECM-estimated and actual tumor motion. Next, the RMSE of the ECM-estimated tumor motion throughout the fractions was calculated for four simulated ECM update strategies: (A) no update, 0.33Hz internal sampling with continuous update of either (B) all ECM parameters based on the last 2 minutes samples or (C) only the baseline term based on the last 5 samples, (D) full ECM update every minute using 20s continuous internal sampling. Results: The augmented quadratic ECM3 had best fit accuracy with mean (± SD)) RMSEs of 0.32 ± 0.11mm (left-right, LR), 0.79 ± 0.30mm (cranio-caudal, CC) and 0.56 ± 0.31mm (anterior-posterior, AP). However, the simpler augmented linear ECM2 combined with frequent baseline updates (update strategy C) gave best motion estimations with mean RMSEs of 0.41 ± 0.14mm (LR), 1.02 ± 0.33mm (CC) and 0.78 ± 0.48mm (AP). This was significantly better than all other ECM-update strategy combinations for CC motion (Wilcoxon signed rank p<0.05). Conclusion: The augmented linear ECM2 combined with frequent baseline updates provided the best compromise between fit accuracy and robustness towards irregular motion. It allows accurate internal motion monitoring by combining external motioning with sparse 0.33Hz kV imaging, which is available at conventional linacs.
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.