↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of gold fiducial marker manual localisation for magnetic resonance-only prostate radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 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
Evaluation of gold fiducial marker manual localisation for magnetic resonance-only prostate radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13014-018-1029-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Maspero, Peter R. Seevinck, Nicole J. W. Willems, Gonda G. Sikkes, Geja J. de Kogel, Hans C. J. de Boer, Jochem R. N. van der Voort van Zyp, Cornelis A. T. van den Berg

Abstract

The use of intraprostatic gold fiducial markers (FMs) ensures highly accurate and precise image-guided radiation therapy for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer thanks to the ease of localising FMs on photon-based imaging, like Computed Tomography (CT) images. Recently, Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy has been proposed to simplify the workflow and reduce possible systematic uncertainties. A critical, determining factor in the accuracy of such an MR-only simulation will be accurate FM localisation using solely MR images. The aim of this study is to evaluate the performances of manual MR-based FM localisation within a clinical environment. We designed a study in which 5 clinically involved radiation therapy technicians (RTTs) independently localised the gold FMs implanted in 16 prostate cancer patients in two scenarios: employing a single MR sequence or a combination of sequences. Inter-observer precision and accuracy were assessed for the two scenarios for localisation in terms of 95% limit of agreement on single FMs (LoA)/ centre of mass (LoA CM) and inter-marker distances (IDs), respectively. The number of precisely located FMs (LoA <2 mm) increased from 38/48 to 45/48 FMs when localisation was performed using multiple sequences instead of single one. When performing localisation on multiple sequences, imprecise localisation of the FMs (3/48 FMs) occurred for 1/3 implanted FMs in three different patients. In terms of precision, we obtained LoA CM within 0.25 mm in all directions over the precisely located FMs. In terms of accuracy, IDs difference of manual MR-based localisation versus CT-based localisation was on average (±1 STD) 0.6 ±0.6 mm. For both the investigated scenarios, the results indicate that when FM classification was correct, the precision and accuracy are high and comparable to CT-based FM localisation. We found that use of multiple sequences led to better localisation performances compared with the use of single sequence. However, we observed that, due to the presence of calcification and motion, the risk of mislocated patient positioning is still too high to allow the sole use of manual FM localisation. Finally, strategies to possibly overcome the current challenges were proposed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 8 20%
Researcher 6 15%
Other 3 7%
Professor 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 27%
Physics and Astronomy 5 12%
Computer Science 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,131,870
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#762
of 2,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,982
of 329,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#16
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 329,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 58% of its contemporaries.