A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Clinical relevance of metal artefact reduction in computed tomography (iMAR) in the pelvic and head and neck region: Multi-institutional contouring study of gross tumour volumes and organs at risk on clinical cases. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Introduction: Artefacts caused by dental implants and hip replacements may impede target volume definition and dose calculation accuracy. The iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) algorithm can provide a solution for this problem. The present study compares delineation of gross tumour volumes (GTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) in the pelvic and the head and neck (H & N) regions using computed tomography (CT) with and without iMAR, and thus the practical applicability of iMAR for routine clinical use.

Methods: The native planning CT and CT-iMAR data of two typical clinical cases with image-distorting artefacts were used for multi-institutional contouring and analysis using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). GTV/OAR contours were compared with an intraobserver approach and compared to predefined reference structures.

Results: Mean volume for GTV in the intraobserver approach decreased from 87 ± 44 cm (native CT) to 75 ± 22 cm (CT-iMAR) (P = 0.168). Compared to the reference, DSC values for GTV increased from 0.68 ± 0.15 to 0.78 ± 0.07 (CT vs. iMAR) (P < 0.05). In the H & N region, the reference for GTV (34 cm ) was underestimated on both data sets. No significant improvement in DSC values (0.83 ± 0.06 (native CT) versus 0.86 ± 0.06 (CT-iMAR)) was observed.

Conclusion: The use of iMAR improves the anatomical delineation at the transition of prostate and bladder in cases of bilateral hip replacement. In the H & N region, anatomical residual structures and experience were apparently sufficient for precise contouring.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12924DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

metal artefact
8
artefact reduction
8
computed tomography
8
tomography imar
8
pelvic head
8
head neck
8
multi-institutional contouring
8
gross tumour
8
tumour volumes
8
organs risk
8

Similar Publications