ArticleJournal of medical imaging and radiation oncology2025
Feasibility of Therapist-Driven MR-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Disease: Geometric Accuracy and Dosimetric Impact.
Article in Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is the resource-intensive process of daily treatment plan modification. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of radiation therapist (RT)-led MRI-guided ART for oligometastatic disease (OMD) by comparing geometric accuracy and dosimetric differences between RT and radiation oncologist (RO) re-contouring.
methodsFive RTs and five ROs retrospectively re-contoured gross target volumes (GTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) for eight OMD cases. RT and RO contours were compared against consensus RO Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (RO-STAPLE) contours using the Dice similarity coefficient (DICE), mean distance to agreement (MDA), planning target volume (PTV) D95 and OAR D0.5cc using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Moreover, an RO qualitatively scored all contours using a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsWe found very good geometric accuracy with average (±standard deviation) GTV DICE of 0.82 ± 0.06 for RTs and 0.85 ± 0.09 for ROs and MDA of 0.88 ± 0.03 mm for RT and 0.75 ± 0.05 mm for ROs relative to the RO-STAPLE. Qualitative GTV Likert scores were excellent, 4.8/5 for RTs and 4.7/5 for ROs. Mean percent difference in PTV D95 compared to RO-STAPLE was small but significantly higher for RTs (0.5% ± 1.5%) compared with ROs (-0.7% ± 1.9%, p < 0.05). Mean relative change in OAR D0.5cc results was small with -1% ± 6% for RTs and -1% ± 12% for ROs.
conclusionsHere we provide the first report of geometric and dosimetric contouring uncertainty for MR-guided online ART for OMD. Our results show that RT re-contouring maintains similar performance for eligible targets and OARs compared with RO contours, establishing the initial feasibility of an RT-led workflow.
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.