↓ Skip to main content

Comparison between model‐predicted tumor oxygenation dynamics and vascular‐/flow‐related Doppler indices

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison between model‐predicted tumor oxygenation dynamics and vascular‐/flow‐related Doppler indices
Published in
Medical Physics, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/mp.12192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonella Belfatto, Ailyn M. Vidal Urbinati, Delia Ciardo, Dorella Franchi, Federica Cattani, Roberta Lazzari, Barbara A. Jereczek‐Fossa, Roberto Orecchia, Guido Baroni, Pietro Cerveri

Abstract

Mathematical modeling is a powerful and flexible method to investigate complex phenomena. It discloses the possibility of reproducing expensive as well as invasive experiments in a safe environment with limited costs. This makes it suitable to mimic tumor evolution and response to radiotherapy although the reliability of the results remains an issue. Complexity reduction is therefore a critical aspect in order to be able to compare model outcomes to clinical data. Among the factors affecting treatment efficacy, tumor oxygenation is known to play a key role in radiotherapy response. In this work, we aim at relating the oxygenation dynamics, predicted by a macroscale model trained on tumor volumetric data of uterine cervical cancer patients, to vascularization and blood flux indices assessed on Ultrasound Doppler images. We propose a macroscale model of tumor evolution based on three dynamics, namely active portion, necrotic portion and oxygenation. The model parameters were assessed on the volume size of seven cervical cancer patients administered with 28 fractions of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (1.8 Gy/fraction). For each patient, five Doppler ultrasound tests were acquired before, during and after the treatment. The lesion was manually contoured by an expert physician using 4D View(®) (General Electric Company - Fairfield, Connecticut, United States), which automatically provided the overall tumor volume size along with three vascularization and/or blood flow indices. Volume data only were fed to the model for training purpose, while the predicted oxygenation was compared a posteriori to the measured Doppler indices. The model was able to fit the tumor volume evolution within 8% error (range: 3-8%). A strong correlation between the intra-patient longitudinal indices from Doppler measurements and oxygen predicted by the model (about 90% or above) was found in three cases. Two patients showed an average correlation value (50-70%) and the remaining two presented poor correlations. The latter patients were the ones featuring the smallest tumor reduction throughout the treatment, typical of hypoxic conditions. Moreover, the average oxygenation value predicted by the model was close to the average vascularization-flow index (average difference: 7%). The results suggest that the modeled relation between tumor evolution and oxygen dynamics was reasonable enough to provide realistic oxygenation curves in five cases (correlation greater than 50%) out of seven. In case of non-responsive tumors, the model failed in predicting the oxygenation trend while succeeded in reproducing the average oxygenation value according to the mean vascularization-flow index. Despite the need for deeper investigations, the outcomes of the present work support the hypothesis that a simple macroscale model of tumor response to radiotherapy is able to predict the tumor oxygenation. The possibility of an objective and quantitative validation on imaging data discloses the possibility to translate them as decision support tools in clinical practice and to move a step forward in the treatment personalization. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Engineering 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,000,155
of 24,578,676 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#6,311
of 7,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,057
of 314,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#116
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,578,676 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,889 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.