↓ Skip to main content

A review of segmentation and deformable registration methods applied to adaptive cervical cancer radiation therapy treatment planning

Overview of attention for article published in Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
A review of segmentation and deformable registration methods applied to adaptive cervical cancer radiation therapy treatment planning
Published in
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.artmed.2015.04.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soumya Ghose, Lois Holloway, Karen Lim, Philip Chan, Jacqueline Veera, Shalini K. Vinod, Gary Liney, Peter B. Greer, Jason Dowling

Abstract

Manual contouring and registration for radiotherapy treatment planning and online adaptation for cervical cancer radiation therapy in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance images (MRI) are often necessary. However manual intervention is time consuming and may suffer from inter or intra-rater variability. In recent years a number of computer-guided automatic or semi-automatic segmentation and registration methods have been proposed. Segmentation and registration in CT and MRI for this purpose is a challenging task due to soft tissue deformation, inter-patient shape and appearance variation and anatomical changes over the course of treatment. The objective of this work is to provide a state-of-the-art review of computer-aided methods developed for adaptive treatment planning and radiation therapy planning for cervical cancer radiation therapy. Segmentation and registration methods published with the goal of cervical cancer treatment planning and adaptation have been identified from the literature (PubMed and Google Scholar). A comprehensive description of each method is provided. Similarities and differences of these methods are highlighted and the strengths and weaknesses of these methods are discussed. A discussion about choice of an appropriate method for a given modality is provided. In the reviewed papers a Dice similarity coefficient of around 0.85 along with mean absolute surface distance of 2-4mm for the clinically treated volume were reported for transfer of contours from planning day to the treatment day. Most segmentation and non-rigid registration methods have been primarily designed for adaptive re-planning for the transfer of contours from planning day to the treatment day. The use of shape priors significantly improved segmentation and registration accuracy compared to other models.

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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 15 13%
Other 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Engineering 18 15%
Computer Science 18 15%
Physics and Astronomy 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 26 22%
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 16 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
#711
of 913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,122
of 279,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 913 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 279,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.