Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28740907›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Functional imaging equivalence and proof of concept for image-guided adaptive radiotherapy with fixed gantry and rotating couch.

Ilana Feain, Chun-Chien Shieh, Paul White, Ricky O'Brien, Sandra Fisher, William Counter, Peter Lazarakis, David Stewart, Simon Downes, Michael Jackson and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Ilana FeainRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Chun-Chien ShiehRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Paul WhiteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Ricky O'BrienRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sandra FisherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
William CounterRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter LazarakisRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David StewartDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Simon DownesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael JacksonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Siddhartha BaxiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, South West Radiation Oncology Service, Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia.
Brendan WhelanRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kuldeep MakhijaRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Chen-Yu HuangRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael BartonCollaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Paul KeallRadiation Physics Laboratory, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this article is to present the first imaging experiments to demonstrate the functional equivalence between a conventional rotational gantry and a fixed-beam imaging geometry, and the feasibility of an iterative image-reconstruction technique under gravitational deformation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Experiments were performed using an Elekta Axesse with Agility MLC and XVI, a custom-built rotating phantom stage, a Catphan QA phantom, and a porcine heart. For the imaging equivalence, a conventional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of the Catphan was acquired, as well as a set of 660 x-ray projections with a static gantry and rotating Catphan. Both datasets were reconstructed with the Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) algorithm, and the resultant volumetric images were compared using standard metrics. For imaging under gravitational deformation, a conventional CBCT of the Catphan and a set of 660 x-ray projections with a static gantry and rotating Catphan were also acquired with a porcine heart. The conventional CBCT was reconstructed using FDK. The projections that were acquired with the heart rotating were sorted into angular bins and reconstructed with prior image constrained compressed sensing using a deformation-blurred FDK prior. Deformation was quantified with B-spline transformation-based deformable image registration.

resultsFor imaging equivalence, the difference between the two Catphan images was consistent with Poisson noise. For imaging under gravitational deformation, the conventional CBCT porcine heart image (ground truth at 0 degrees) matched the static gantry, rotating heart reconstruction with a mean magnitude of <3 mm and maximum magnitude of <5 mm of the deformation vector field. The mean deformation of the rotating heart was 3.0 to 8.9 mm, up to 16.1 mm maximum deformation. Deformation was mainly observed in the direction of gravity.

conclusionsWe have demonstrated imaging equivalence in cone beam CT reconstructions between rigid phantom images acquired with a conventional rotating gantry and with a fixed-gantry and rotating phantom. We have presented a method for image reconstruction under a fixed-beam imaging geometry using a deformable phantom.

Identifiers

PMID28740907
PMCPMC5514241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.