↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Evaluating organ delineation, dose calculation and daily localization in an open-MRI simulation workflow for prostate cancer patients
Published in
Radiation Oncology, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-014-0309-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Doemer, Indrin J Chetty, Carri Glide-Hurst, Teamour Nurushev, David Hearshen, Milan Pantelic, Melanie Traughber, Joshua Kim, Kenneth Levin, Mohamed A Elshaikh, Eleanor Walker, Benjamin Movsas

Abstract

This study describes initial testing and evaluation of a vertical-field open Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner for the purpose of simulation in radiation therapy for prostate cancer. We have evaluated the clinical workflow of using open MRI as a sole modality for simulation and planning. Relevant results related to MRI alignment (vs. CT) reference dataset with Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) for daily localization are presented. Ten patients participated in an IRB approved study utilizing MRI along with CT simulation with the intent of evaluating the MRI-simulation process. Differences in prostate gland volume, seminal vesicles, and penile bulb were assessed with MRI and compared to CT. To evaluate dose calculation accuracy, bulk-density-assignments were mapped onto respective MRI datasets and treated IMRT plans were re-calculated. For image localization purposes, 400 CBCTs were re-evaluated with MRI as the reference dataset and daily shifts compared against CBCT-to-CT registration. Planning margins based on MRI/CBCT shifts were computed using the van Herk formalism. Significant organ contour differences were noted between MRI and CT. Prostate volumes were on average 39.7% (p = 0.002) larger on CT than MRI. No significant difference was found in seminal vesicle volumes (p = 0.454). Penile bulb volumes were 61.1% higher on CT, without statistical significance (p = 0.074). MRI-based dose calculations with assigned bulk densities produced agreement within 1% with heterogeneity corrected CT calculations. The differences in shift positions for the cohort between CBCT-to-CT registration and CBCT-to-MRI registration are -0.15 ± 0.25 cm (anterior-posterior), 0.05 ± 0.19 cm (superior-inferior), and -0.01 ± 0.14 cm (left-right). This study confirms the potential of using an open-field MRI scanner as primary imaging modality for prostate cancer treatment planning simulation, dose calculations and daily image localization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Unspecified 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 28%
Unspecified 10 12%
Physics and Astronomy 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 21 25%
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 19 February 2015.
All research outputs
#6,949,679
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#358
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,599
of 357,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#17
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 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 2,053 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 357,797 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 71% 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 73% of its contemporaries.