MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can MRI accurately define tumor boundaries to guide focal salvage after radiotherapy?

2011· article· en· W2559850178 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Iupati, M. Haider, Peter Chung, Andrew Bayley, Charles Catton, Michael Milosevic, Robert G. Bristow, Gerard Morton, Padraig Warde, Cynthia Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyRadiologyRadiation therapyProstate cancerMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

124 Background: We evaluated the role of MRI (plus/minus biopsy) in delineating tumour boundaries for focal salvage therapy of prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy. Methods: Patients with biochemical failure after radiotherapy were enrolled in a prospective clinical trial mapping sites of local recurrence. An integrated diagnostic MRI and interventional mapping biopsy procedure was performed under sedation in a 1.5T scanner. Patients were imaged with a pelvic coil and an endorectal coil attached to a stereotactic transperineal template assembly. Multiparametric MRI images were acquired, followed by targeted radial biopsy of suspicious regions and random sextant sampling of the normal-appearing peripheral zone. Histology maps were generated by delineation and registration of biopsy cores onto diagnostic images using point-based rigid image registration. Two independent blinded observers reviewed images offline and delineated tumours boundaries which were compared against overlaid histology maps. Coverage was considered accurate if all pathologically proven tumour sites were encompassed within delineated boundaries. Results: Of the 18 patients analysed to date, the majority (83%) were found to have local recurrence. Patients with <6 informative cores were excluded, leaving 15 patients for analysis. Observers performed comparably, whereby mean MRI sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for detecting tumor was 0.76, 0.7, 0.7, and 0.75. The MRI tumour boundary was accurate in 5/15 patients, and improved to 8/15 patients with addition of a 5-mm expansion margin. Targeted radial biopsies improved accuracy to 14/15 patients, by excluding false positive regions (n=2), increasing tumor volumes (n=2) or both (n=2). Random sampling biopsy was only relevant in 1 patient by detecting tumor not identified by MRI and targeted biopsy. Conclusions: MRI alone is not sufficiently accurate to define boundaries for tumor-targeted salvage even with addition of an uncertainty margin. Targeted biopsy improved both detection and delineation accuracy for recurrent tumor regions, and changed salvage therapy planning in 40% of patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→