ArticleOncology letters2018
Effects of 16-bit CT imaging scanning conditions for metal implants on radiotherapy dose distribution.
Article in Oncology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dose calculation accuracy with extended CT scales near metal: phantom-patient evaluation using a beam-metal overlap metric.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Photon-counting CT for bullet material differentiation: applications in forensic radiology.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dose distribution was calculated and analyzed on the basis of 16-bit computed tomography (CT) images in order to investigate the effect of scanning conditions on CT for metal implants. Stainless steel and titanium rods were inserted into a phantom, and CT images were obtained by scanning the phantom under various scanning conditions: i) Fixed tube current of 230 mA and tube voltages of 100, 120, and 140 kV; and ii) fixed tube voltage of 120 kV and tube currents of 180, 230, and 280 mA. The CT value of the metal rod was examined and corrected. In a Varian treatment planning system, a treatment plan was designed on the basis of the CT images obtained under the set scanning conditions. The dose distributions in the phantom were then calculated and compared. The CT value of the metal area slightly changed upon tube current alteration. The dose distribution in the phantom was also similar. The maximum CT values of the stainless steel rod were 14,568, 14,127 and 13,295 HU when the tube voltages were modified to 100, 120, and 140 kV, respectively. The corresponding CT values of the titanium rod were 9,420, 8,140 and 7,310 HU. The dose distribution of the radiotherapy plan changed significantly as the tube voltage varied. Compared with the reference dose, the respective maximum dose differences of the stainless steel and titanium rods in the phantom were 5.70, and 6.62% when the tube voltage varied. The changes in tube currents resulted in a maximum dose error of <1% for stainless steel and titanium. In CT imaging, changes in tube voltages can significantly alter the CT values of metal implants. Thus, this can lead to large errors in radiotherapy dose distributions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.