ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
A self-gated 4D-MRI sequence for internal target volume delineation in liver: Phantom and pre-clinical validation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A self-gated 4D-MRI sequence for internal target volume delineation in liver: Phantom and pre-clinical validation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe poor soft tissue resolution of four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) limits its utility in delineating liver cancer target volumes. PURPOSE: To compare the consistency between four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4D-MRI) using T1-weighted (T1w) radial stack-of-stars (SOS) gradient echo (GRE) sequences and 4D-CT in assessing tumor motion and morphology, for defining internal target volume in liver tumor radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsPosition and geometric accuracy and the impact of baseline drift between 4D-MRI (using T1w radial SOS GRE sequence) and 4D-CT were evaluated using a motion phantom. Ten primary liver cancer patients were included for comparison. Volume, centroid position, dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95) were assessed.
resultsBaseline drift did not significantly affect target motion or morphology descriptions in 4D-MRI (normal vs. drift: p = 0.139, DSC = 0.94 ± 0.01, HD95 = 1.82 ± 0.43) or 4D-CT (p = 0.051, DSC = 0.95 ± 0.03, HD95 = 1.59 ± 0.71), but significantly impacted target volume delineation (4D-CT: p = 0.040; 4D-MRI: p = 0.024). Phantom studies showed consistent motion amplitude measurements between modalities for small motion patterns (2 s/10 mm; p = 0.192), while 4D-MRI underestimated amplitudes in large patterns (4 s/20 mm; p = 0.012), consistent with patient data (small: p = 0.453; large: p = 0.004). Volume analysis revealed 4D-MRI underestimated phantom volumes by 6.33% (2 s/10 mm) and 6.10% (4 s/20 mm) versus ground truth, contrasting with 4D-CT's overestimations (2.01% and 2.51%). Clinically, 4D-CT-derived gross tumor volumes (GTVs)/internal tumor volumes (ITVs) exceeded 4D-MRI measurements, particularly in large motion patterns (GTVs: (11.79 ± 13.13)%; ITVs: (22.08 ± 18.59)%) versus small patterns (GTVs: (9.70 ± 9.10)%; ITVs: (11.01 ± 8.05)%). Temporal stability metrics were comparable between modalities for small motion (phantom DSC p = 0.770, HD95 p = 0.131; patient DSC p = 0.156), with overall GTV/ITV spatial agreement (DSC: 0.79 ± 0.06 vs. 0.83 ± 0.04 for 4D-CT vs. 4D-MRI).
conclusionThe results show 4D-MRI with a T1w radial SOS GRE sequence matches 4D-CT's accuracy in target motion characterization and morphological delineation, while providing precise tumor delineation for primary liver cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.