Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29479821›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018

Patient-specific calibration of cone-beam computed tomography data sets for radiotherapy dose calculations and treatment plan assessment.

Michael MacFarlane, Daniel Wong, Douglas A Hoover, Eugene Wong, Carol Johnson, Jerry J Battista, Jeff Z Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Michael MacFarlaneLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Science Center, London, ON, Canada.
Daniel WongLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Science Center, London, ON, Canada.
Douglas A HooverLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Science Center, London, ON, Canada.
Eugene WongLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Science Center, London, ON, Canada.
Carol JohnsonLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Science Center, London, ON, Canada.
Jerry J BattistaLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Science Center, London, ON, Canada.
Jeff Z ChenLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Science Center, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this work, we propose a new method of calibrating cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data sets for radiotherapy dose calculation and plan assessment. The motivation for this patient-specific calibration (PSC) method is to develop an efficient, robust, and accurate CBCT calibration process that is less susceptible to deformable image registration (DIR) errors.

methodsInstead of mapping the CT numbers voxel-by-voxel with traditional DIR calibration methods, the PSC methods generates correlation plots between deformably registered planning CT and CBCT voxel values, for each image slice. A linear calibration curve specific to each slice is then obtained by least-squares fitting, and applied to the CBCT slice's voxel values. This allows each CBCT slice to be corrected using DIR without altering the patient geometry through regional DIR errors. A retrospective study was performed on 15 head-and-neck cancer patients, each having routine CBCTs and a middle-of-treatment re-planning CT (reCT). The original treatment plan was re-calculated on the patient's reCT image set (serving as the gold standard) as well as the image sets produced by voxel-to-voxel DIR, density-overriding, and the new PSC calibration methods. Dose accuracy of each calibration method was compared to the reference reCT data set using common dose-volume metrics and 3D gamma analysis. A phantom study was also performed to assess the accuracy of the DIR and PSC CBCT calibration methods compared with planning CT.

resultsCompared with the gold standard using reCT, the average dose metric differences were ≤ 1.1% for all three methods (PSC: -0.3%; DIR: -0.7%; density-override: -1.1%). The average gamma pass rates with thresholds 3%, 3 mm were also similar among the three techniques (PSC: 95.0%; DIR: 96.1%; density-override: 94.4%).

conclusionsAn automated patient-specific calibration method was developed which yielded strong dosimetric agreement with the results obtained using a re-planning CT for head-and-neck patients.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPhantoms, ImagingCalibrationCone-Beam Computed TomographyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPrognosisRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesCBCTDIRdose trackingtreatment plan assessment

Identifiers

PMID29479821
PMCPMC5849848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.