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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The potential failure risk of the cone-beam computed tomography-based planning target volume margin definition for prostate image-guided radiotherapy based on a prospective single-institutional hybrid analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-018-1043-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katsumi Hirose, Mariko Sato, Yoshiomi Hatayama, Hideo Kawaguchi, Fumio Komai, Makoto Sohma, Hideki Obara, Masashi Suzuki, Mitsuki Tanaka, Ichitaro Fujioka, Koji Ichise, Yoshihiro Takai, Masahiko Aoki |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of markerless on-board kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based positioning uncertainty on determination of the planning target volume (PTV) margin by comparison with kV on-board imaging (OBI) with gold fiducial markers (FMs), and to validate a methodology for the evaluation of PTV margins for markerless kV-CBCT in prostate image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). A total of 1177 pre- and 1177 post-treatment kV-OBI and 1177 pre- and 206 post-treatment kV-CBCT images were analyzed in 25 patients who received prostate IGRT with daily localization by implanted FMs. Intrafractional motion of the prostate was evaluated between each pre- and post-treatment image with these two different techniques. The differences in prostate deviations and intrafractional motions between matching by FM in kV-OBI (OBI-FM) and matching by soft tissues in kV-CBCT (CBCT-ST) were compared by Bland-Altman limits of agreement. Compensated PTV margins were determined and compensated by references. Mean differences between OBI-FM and CBCT-ST in the anterior to posterior (AP), superior to inferior (SI), and left to right (LR) directions were - 0.43 ± 1.45, - 0.09 ± 1.65, and - 0.12 ± 0.80 mm, respectively, with R2 = 0.85, 0.88, and 0.83, respectively. Intrafractional motions obtained from CBCT-ST were 0.00 ± 1.46, 0.02 ± 1.49, and 0.15 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, which were smaller than the results from OBI-FM, with 0.43 ± 1.90, 0.12 ± 1.98, and 0.26 ± 0.80 mm, respectively, with R2 = 0.42, 0.33, and 0.16, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed a significant proportional bias. PTV margins of 1.5 mm, 1.4 mm, and 0.9 mm for CBCT-ST were calculated from the values of CBCT-ST, which were also smaller than the values of 3.15 mm, 3.66 mm, and 1.60 mm from OBI-FM. The practical PTV margin for CBCT-ST was compensated with the values from OBI-FM as 4.1 mm, 4.8 mm, and 2.2 mm. PTV margins calculated from CBCT-ST might be underestimated compared to the true PTV margins. To determine a reliable CBCT-ST-based PTV margin, at least the systemic error Σ and the random error σ for on-line matching errors need to be investigated by supportive preliminary FM evaluation at least once. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,535,385
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,061
of 2,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,569
of 329,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#20
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 329,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.