4.3 Article

Feasibility of transrectal ultrasonography for assessment of cervical cancer

期刊

STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE
卷 189, 期 2, 页码 123-128

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-012-0258-1

关键词

Cervical cancer; Radiotherapy; Image-guided adaptive brachytherapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Transrectal ultrasonography

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund FWF [L 562] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [L 562] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To retrospectively compare the maximum target width and target thickness in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in the course of primary radiochemotherapy. T2-weighted MRI and TRUS were performed on patients with locally advanced cervical cancer at the same timepoint-either at the time of diagnosis, or at the time of brachytherapy before or after insertion of the applicator. Patients treated from 2009 to 2011 were selected for this study based on the availability of MRI and TRUS at the defined time points. The target was defined as the complete macroscopic tumor mass and the remaining cervix and was measured on transversal planes. Descriptive statistics and a linear regression analysis were performed for the groups. Images from 17 patients were available for analysis. Mean maximum target width was 4.2 +/- 0.83 cm and 4.2 +/- 0.79 cm for MRI and TRUS, respectively. Mean maximum target thickness was 3.3 +/- 1.03 cm and 3.1 +/- 1.15 cm for MRI and TRUS, respectively. Linear regression analysis for target width and thickness between TRUS and MRI demonstrated a correlation with R-2 = 0.842 and R-2 = 0.943, respectively. The feasibility of TRUS for the assessment of local target extension could be demonstrated. Comparison of the target width and thickness showed a high correlation between TRUS and MRI, indicating the potential of TRUS for target definition in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据