Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30433821›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019

An evaluation of techniques for dose calculation on cone beam computed tomography.

Valentina Giacometti, Raymond B King, Christina E Agnew, Denise M Irvine, Suneil Jain, Alan R Hounsell, Conor K McGarry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Valentina Giacometti1 Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast , Belfast , UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7999-8242
Raymond B King1 Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast , Belfast , UK.
Christina E Agnew2 Radiotherapy Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre , Belfast , UK.
Denise M Irvine2 Radiotherapy Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre , Belfast , UK.
Suneil Jain1 Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast , Belfast , UK.
Alan R Hounsell1 Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast , Belfast , UK.
Conor K McGarry1 Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast , Belfast , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective: To assess the accuracy and efficiency of four different techniques, thus determining the optimum method for recalculating dose on cone beam CT (CBCT) images acquired during radiotherapy treatments.

methods: Four established techniques were investigated and their accuracy assessed via dose calculations: (1) applying a standard planning CT (pCT) calibration curve, (2) applying a CBCT site-specific calibration curve, (3) performing a density override and (4) using deformable registration. Each technique was applied to 15 patients receiving volumetric modulated arc therapy to one of three treatment sites, head and neck, lung and prostate. Differences between pCT and CBCT recalculations were determined with dose volume histogram metrics and 2.0%/0.1 mm gamma analysis using the pCT dose distribution as a reference.

results: Dose volume histogram analysis indicated that all techniques yielded differences from expected results between 0.0 and 2.3% for both target volumes and organs at risk. With volumetric gamma analysis, the dose recalculation on deformed images yielded the highest pass-rates. The median pass-rate ranges at 50% threshold were 99.6-99.9%, 94.6-96.0%, and 94.8.0-96.0% for prostate, head and neck and lung patients, respectively.

conclusion: Deformable registration, HU override and site-specific calibration curves were all identified as dosimetrically accurate and efficient methods for dose calculation on CBCT images. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: With the increasing adoption of CBCT, this study provides clinical radiotherapy departments with invaluable information regarding the comparison of dose reconstruction methods, enabling a more accurate representation of a patient's treatment. It can also integrate studies in which CBCT is used in image-guided radiation therapy and for adaptive radiotherapy planning processes.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLung NeoplasmsMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID30433821
PMCPMC6540850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.