MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900925481 · doi:10.1002/mp.13292

Evaluation of tumor coverage after MR‐guided prostate focal laser ablation therapy

2018· article· en· W2900925481 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Knull, Aytekin Oto, Scott Eggener, David Tessier, Serkan Güneyli, Aritrick Chatterjee, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleMedicineAblationProstate cancerProstateMagnetic resonance imagingLesionAblation zoneRadiologyNuclear medicineSurgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous cancer among men in the USA. Focal laser thermal ablation (FLA) has the potential to control small tumors while preserving urinary and erectile function by leaving the neurovascular bundles and urethral sphincters intact. Accurate needle guidance is critical to the success of FLA. Multiparametric magnetic resonance images (mpMRI) can be used to identify targets, guide needles, and assess treatment outcomes. In this study, we evaluated the location of ablation zones relative to targeted lesions in 23 patients who underwent FLA therapy in a phase II trial. The ablation zone margins and unablated tumor volume were measured to determine whether complete coverage of each tumor was achieved, which would be considered a clinically successful ablation. METHODS: Preoperative mpMRI was acquired for each patient 2-3 months preceding the procedure and the prostate and lesion(s) were manually contoured on 3 T T2-weighted axial images. The prostate and ablation zone(s) were also manually contoured on postablation 1.5 T T1-weighted contrast-enhanced axial images acquired immediately after the procedure intraoperatively. The lesion surface was nonrigidly registered to the postablation image using an initial affine registration followed by nonrigid thin-plate spline registration of the prostate surfaces. The margins between the registered lesion and ablation zone were calculated using a uniform spherical distribution of rays, and the volume of intersection was also calculated. Each prostate was contoured five times to determine the segmentation variability and its effect on intersection of the lesion and ablation zone. RESULTS: ). The median extension of the tumors beyond the ablation zone, in cases which were partially ablated, was 0.9 mm (IQR of 1.3 mm), with the furthest tumor extending 2.6 mm. CONCLUSION: In all cases, the boundary of the tumor was close to the boundary of the ablation zone, and in some cases, the boundary of the ablation zone did not completely enclose the tumor. Our results suggest that some of the ablations were not clinically successful and that there is a need for more accurate needle tracking and guidance methods. Limitations of the study include errors in the registration and segmentation methods used as well as different voxel sizes and contrast between the registered T2 and T1 MRI sequences and asymmetric swelling of the prostate postprocedurally.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207