Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39802501›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention, detection, and intervention : Third MICCAI Workshop, CaPTion 2024, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2024, Marrakesh, Morocco, October 6, 2024, Proceedings. CaPTion (Workshop) (3rd : 2024 : Marrakech, Morocco)2025

Treatment efficacy prediction of focused ultrasound therapies using multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Amanpreet Singh, Samuel Adams-Tew, Sara Johnson, Henrik Odeen, Jill Shea, Audrey Johnson, Lorena Day, Alissa Pessin, Allison Payne, Sarang Joshi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention, detection, and intervention : Third MICCAI Workshop, CaPTion 2024, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2024, Marrakesh, Morocco, October 6, 2024, Proceedings. CaPTion (Workshop) (3rd : 2024 : Marrakech, Morocco), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

10 authors.

Amanpreet SinghUniversity of Utah.ORCID 0000-0001-5980-7608
Samuel Adams-TewUniversity of Utah.ORCID 0000-0003-0715-5235
Sara JohnsonUniversity of Utah.ORCID 0000-0001-8796-1549
Henrik OdeenUniversity of Utah.
Jill SheaUniversity of Utah.ORCID 0000-0002-8644-7772
Audrey JohnsonUniversity of Utah.
Lorena DayUniversity of Utah.
Alissa PessinUniversity of Utah.ORCID 0009-0001-1271-8146
Allison PayneUniversity of Utah.ORCID 0000-0002-7724-5001
Sarang JoshiUniversity of Utah.ORCID 0000-0002-3446-4810

Funding

A tissue viability imaging biomarker for use in non-invasive breast cancer therapyR01CA259686 · NCI · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SARANG JOSHI, Allison Payne · 2022 to 2026
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA259686
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is one of the most attractive emerging minimally invasive procedures for breast cancer, which induces localized hyperthermia, resulting in tumor cell death. Accurately assessing the post-ablation viability of all treated tumor tissue and surrounding margins immediately after MRgFUS thermal therapy residual tumor tissue is essential for evaluating treatment efficacy. While both thermal and vascular MRI-derived biomarkers are currently used to assess treatment efficacy, currently, no adequately accurate methods exist for the in vivo determination of tissue viability during treatment. The non-perfused volume (NPV) acquired three or more days following MRgFUS thermal ablation treatment is most correlated with the gold standard of histology. However, its delayed timing impedes real-time guidance for the treating clinician during the procedure. We present a robust deep-learning framework that leverages multiparametric MR imaging acquired during treatment to predict treatment efficacy. The network uses qualtitative T1, T2 weighted images and MR temperature image derived metrics to predict the three day post-ablation NPV. To validate the proposed approach, an ablation study was conducted on a dataset (N=6) of VX2 tumor model rabbits that had undergone MRgFUS ablation. Using a deep learning framework, we evaluated which of the acquired MRI inputs were most predictive of treatment efficacy as compared to the expert radiologist annotated 3 day post-treatment images.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided Treatment ResponseFocused UltrasoundTreatment Efficacy

Identifiers

PMID39802501
PMCPMC11720455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.