| Literature DB >> 30241555 |
Nicole Wiedenmann1,2,3, Hatice Bunea4,5,6, Hans C Rischke4,7,5,6, Andrei Bunea4,5,6, Liette Majerus4,5,6, Lars Bielak8, Alexey Protopopov8, Ute Ludwig8, Martin Büchert8, Christian Stoykow7,5,6, Nils H Nicolay4,5,6, Wolfgang A Weber9, Michael Mix7,5,6, Philipp T Meyer7,5,6, Jürgen Hennig8,5,6, Michael Bock8,5,6, Anca L Grosu4,5,6.
Abstract
Following the publication of this article [1], the authors noticed that figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 were in the incorrect order and thus had incorrect captions.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30241555 PMCID: PMC6148952 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-018-1134-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Fig. 2Representative example of imaging modalities MRI T1, T2*, and FMISO-PET. Primary tumour and lymph node metastasis (pt. 5, tonsillar carcinoma) at week 0, 2, and 5 (upper, middle, lower panel): co-registered image sets from MRI T1, MRI T2*, FMISO-PET (left to right). Red contours: GTV-T, GTV-LN. Blue contour: HSV-LN
Fig. 3Time course of T2* values within volumes. T2* mean ± STD within tumour, lymph nodes and normal tissue for all patients (n = 10)
Fig. 4Hypoxic tumour subvolumes: T2* values vs. FDG uptake and FMISO uptake. T2* values (ms) were lower and FDG uptake was higher within hypoxic tumour subvolumes as compared to non-hypoxic tumour subvolumes (*p = 0.051, **p = 0.026). FMISO uptake was higher within hypoxic tumour subvolumes than within non-hypoxic tumour subvolumes (***p = 0.029, p = 0.072, ****p = 0.003, p = 0.0001)
Fig. 5Correlation of FMISO uptake with mean T2* and FDG uptake. Plots showing correlation within GTV-T at baseline