↓ Skip to main content

A feature alignment score for online cone‐beam CT‐based image‐guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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 feature alignment score for online cone‐beam CT‐based image‐guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer
Published in
Medical Physics, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/mp.12980
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catriona Hargrave, Timothy Deegan, Michael Poulsen, Tomasz Bednarz, Fiona Harden, Kerrie Mengersen

Abstract

To develop a method for scoring online cone-beam CT (CBCT)-to-planning CT image feature alignment to inform prostate image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) decision-making. The feasibility of incorporating volume variation metric thresholds, predictive of delivering planned dose into weighted functions, was investigated. Radiation therapists and radiation oncologists participated in workshops where they reviewed prostate CBCT-IGRT case examples and completed a paper-based survey of image feature matching practices. For thirty-six prostate cancer patients, one daily CBCT was retrospectively contoured then registered with their plan to simulate delivered dose if 1) no online set-up corrections and 2) online image alignment and set-up corrections, were performed. Survey results were used to select variables for inclusion in classification and regression tree (CART) and boosted regression trees (BRT) modelling of volume variation metric thresholds predictive of delivering planned dose to the prostate, proximal seminal vesicles (PSV), bladder and rectum. Weighted functions incorporating the CART and BRT results were used to calculate a score of individual tumor and organ at risk image feature alignment (FASTV_OAR ). Scaled and weighted FASTV_OAR were then used to calculate a score of overall treatment compliance (FASglobal ) for a given CBCT-planning CT registration. The FASTV_OAR were assessed for sensitivity, specificity and predictive power. FASglobal thresholds indicative of high, medium or low overall treatment plan compliance were determined using coefficients from multiple linear regression analysis. Thirty-two participants completed the prostate CBCT-IGRT survey. While responses demonstrated consensus of practice for preferential ranking of planning CT and CBCT match features in the presence of deformation and rotation, variation existed in the specified thresholds for observed volume differences requiring patient re-positioning or repeat bladder and bowel preparation. The CART and BRT modelling indicated that for a given registration, a Dice similarity coefficient >0.80 and >0.66 for the prostate and PSV respectively and a maximum Hausdorff distance <8.0 mm for both structures were predictive of delivered dose ± 5% of planned dose. A normalized volume difference <1.0 and a CBCT anterior rectum wall >1.0 mm anterior to the planning CT anterior rectum wall were predictive of delivered dose >5% of planned rectum dose. A normalized volume difference <0.88, and a CBCT bladder wall >13.5 mm inferior and >5.0 mm posterior to the planning CT bladder were predictive of delivered dose >5% of planned bladder dose. A FASTV_OAR >0 is indicative of delivery of planned dose. For calculated FASTV_OAR for the prostate, PSV, bladder and rectum using test data, sensitivity was 0.56, 0.75, 0.89 and 1.00 respectively: specificity 0.90, 0.94, 0.59 and 1.00 respectively: positive predictive power 0.90, 0.86, 0.53 and 1.00 respectively and negative predictive power 0.56, 0.89, 0.91 and 1.00 respectively. Thresholds for the calculated FASglobal of were low <60, medium 60-80 and high >80, with a 27% misclassification rate for the test data. A FASglobal incorporating nested FASTV_OAR and volume variation metric thresholds predictive of treatment plan compliance was developed, offering an alternative to pre-treatment dose calculations to assess treatment delivery accuracy. 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 22%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Unspecified 9 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,782,110
of 24,946,857 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#1,911
of 7,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,914
of 335,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#18
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,946,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,934 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 335,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.