A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evaluation of gross target volumes in CECT vs MRI in head and neck cancer and its implication on concordance indices and dose-volume parameters of IMRT treatment plan. | LitMetric

Background: Although radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP) for head and neck cancers (HNCs) is based on contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT), soft tissue contrasts are better evident on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We therefore evaluated dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters along with concordance index (ConI), conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI) of planning target volume (PTV) of GTV delineated on CECT vs MRI in HNCs enrolled for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

Methodology: Forty consecutive HNCs were enrolled in this study. All underwent CECT and MRI simulations with immobilization devices. GTVp and GTVn were delineated independently on CECT and MRI images. Corresponding MRI volumes were then copied to CECT. IMRT plans were generated on the CECT incorporating PTV margins. DVH parameters of PTVpn for both CECT and MRI were compared. In addition, mean (±SD) percentage difference of GTVp, GTVn, GTVpn, ConI, CI, and HI were evaluated using paired t-test.

Results: The GTVp (P = 0.005), GTVn (P = 0.009), and GTVpn (P < 0.001) delineated on MRI were found to be significantly larger than GTV delineated on CECT. In eight patients, GTV outlined on CECT were larger than MRI. Significant mean differences in CECT vs MRI of CI (P < 0.001), HI (P < 0.001), ConI (P < 0.001), and DVH parameters (D2, D95, D98, V95, and V100 all P < 0.001; D50: P = 0.009) were noted.

Conclusion: The GTVs and corresponding PTVs were significantly larger on MRI compared to CECT. This resulted in significant differences in DVH parameters, CI, ConI, and HI. This could be improved by co-registered MRI-CECT volumes during routine IMRT treatment planning for HNCs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_246_23DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cect mri
24
dvh parameters
16
cect
12
mri
11
head neck
8
imrt treatment
8
treatment planning
8
gtv delineated
8
delineated cect
8
hncs enrolled
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!