ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Radiotherapy volume delineation based on MRI and
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the value of MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-six patients who were diagnosed with locally recurrent rectal cancer were included in this study. Patients underwent PET/MRI, and the target volume was delineated independently by three radiation oncologists. The degree of overlap, spatial consistency, and difference in the target volume delineated based on the two methods were compared. The efficacy of PET/MRI and MRI in detecting metastatic lymph nodes was analyzed.
resultsIn radiotherapy for patients with recurrent rectal cancer, the gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target area (CTV), and nodal gross tumor volume (GTVn) delineated based on MRI and PET/MRI were correlated (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). Differences in CTV were statistically significant (P < 0.001), and the CTV greatly overlapped spatially. There is spatial heterogeneity in GTV and GTVn based on the two imaging modalities. Metastatic lymph node analysis revealed that the detection efficiency of the two modalities was the same at the population level. There was no significant difference in the number of metastatic lymph nodes detected (P = 0.521).
conclusionPET/MRI can improve the accuracy of target volume delineation and has similar advantages to MRI in assessing the number of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with recurrent rectal cancer.
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.