ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Potential impact of [
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to compare [18F]-FACBC positron emission tomography (PET)-based radiotherapy (RT) volumes to magnetic resonance (MR)-based volumes and investigate the potential impact of including [18F]-FACBC PET in RT treatment planning for gliomas.
methodsMR- and PET-defined gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were independently contoured on pre-operative [18F]-FACBC PET/MR images in 24 patients with primary or recurrent low- or high-grade glioma. MR GTVs were defined from regions of contrast-enhancement on T1-weighted (ce-T1) sequences. For non-enhancing tumors or non-enhancing tumor components, regions of FLAIR hyperintensity were also included. PET-based GTVs were delineated using a tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) threshold of 2. GTVs were expanded by an isotropic margin to form clinical target volumes (CTVs). Volumetric analysis was performed using size comparisons, Dice coefficients (DC), overlap coefficients (OC) and Hausdorff distances (HD).
resultsPET GTVs were overall significantly smaller than MR GTVs, with median values of 14.8 ccm (6.5–26.7 ccm) and 28.5 ccm (17.2–62.7 ccm), respectively (p = 0.011). No significant volume difference was found between PET and MR volumes when MR volumes were based on ce-T1 only, but PET-based GTVs and CTVs were significantly smaller than MR-based GTVs and CTVs when the latter included FLAIR hyperintensity (p < 0.01). Similarity metrics showed a high degree of concordance between PET and MR volumes in cases where MR volumes were based on ce-T1 only, particularly for CTVs (DC: 0.88 (0.82–0.94), OC: 0.98 (0.96–0.99), HD: 0.86 cm (0.7–1.4 cm)). In comparison, for cases including FLAIR hyperintensity, MR CTVs had a high overlap with PET CTVs (OC: 0.99 (0.96–0.99)), but otherwise significantly lower degree of concordance (DC: 0.66 (0.46–0.81), p < 0.01, HD: 2.65 cm (2.22–3.85 cm), p < 0.001).
conclusion[18F]-FACBC PET underestimates tumor extension compared to FLAIR in contrast negative tumors and tumors containing non-enhancing components, indicating reduced sensitivity to low-grade tumor tissue and microscopic tumor infiltration. Inclusion of [18F]-FACBC PET as supplement to MR in RT planning for glioma could however help identify regions of highly malignant tumor, to facilitate target volume reduction and dose escalation strategies.
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.