ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Assessing treatment accuracy of image-guided liver stereotactic body radiotherapy: a quantitative analysis based on 4D CT through post-therapeutic MRI-morphologic alterations.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has become a promising alternative for patients with inoperable liver cancer. However, the accurate delivery of high doses to moving liver tumors remains challenging. Treatment accuracy can be quantified by comparing post-radiotherapeutic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-morphologic alterations (MMA) and corresponding isodose-structure cropped to the liver (ISL) upon planning computed tomography (CT). The study aimed to evaluate the robustness of accuracy metrics, and investigate the factors influencing treatment accuracy of liver SBRT using an internal target volume (ITV) strategy based on four-dimensional (4D) CT. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on a cohort of 31 liver cancer patients who underwent liver SBRT using an ITV strategy based on 4D CT from October 2018 to March 2024. All patients exhibited localized morphological changes on MRI. In vivo analysis (IVA) of liver SBRT was performed by comparing MMA and ISL following deformable image registration of post-radiotherapeutic MRI and planning CT. Accuracy metrics included Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), conformity index of MMA and ISL (CIMI), Hausdorff distance (HD), mean distance to agreement (MDA), and three-dimensional center-of-mass difference (3D-CoMD). Correlation analysis regarding accuracy metrics and potential factors was conducted to evaluate the robustness of accuracy metrics. Patients were stratified into two groups in ascending order. Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate IVA's influence on progression-free survival (PFS) of clinical target volume (CTV) in the two groups. Two-sample Results: Distance metrics (HD, MDA, and 3D-CoMD) were significantly (P<0.050) influenced by gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), and time to post-therapeutic MRI. Patients with DSC >0.7, CIMI >0.5, HD <25 mm, MDA <5 mm, and 3D-CoMD <8 mm showed significant differences in PFS of CTV (log-rank P=0.013, log-rank P=0.013, log-rank P=0.001, log-rank P=0.009, and log-rank P=0.022, respectively). Motion amplitude did not show significant difference in the two groups defined by thresholds of DSC, CIMI, HD, MDA, and 3D-CoMD. Conclusions: In this
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.