Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28974864›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical physics

Study of Variation in Dose Calculation Accuracy Between kV Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and kV fan-Beam Computed Tomography.

Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal, C Jomon Raphael, K Mathew Varghese, Paul Gopu, S Sivakumar, Minu Boban, N Arunai Nambi Raj, K Senthilnathan, P Ramesh Babu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Venkatesan KaliyaperumalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
C Jomon RaphaelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
K Mathew VargheseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
Paul GopuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
S SivakumarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
Minu BobanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
N Arunai Nambi RajCentre for Biomaterials, Cellular and Molecular Theranostics, VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
K SenthilnathanDepartment of Physics, School of Advanced Sciences VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
P Ramesh BabuDepartment of Physics, School of Advanced Sciences VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from -1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations.

Indexed as

Cone-beam computed tomographydose calculationfan-beam computed tomographyquality assurance

Identifiers

PMID28974864
PMCPMC5618465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.