ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2019
First clinical retrospective investigation of limited projection CBCT for lung tumor localization in patients receiving SBRT treatment.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Management of Motion and Anatomical Variations in Charged Particle Therapy: Past, Present, and Into the Future.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To clinically investigate the limited-projection CBCT (LP-CBCT) technology for daily positioning of patients receiving breath-hold lung SBRT radiation treatment and to investigate the feasibility of reconstructing fast 4D-CBCT from 1 min 3D-CBCT scan. Eleven patients who underwent breath-hold lung SBRT radiation treatment were scanned daily with on-board full-projection CBCT (CBCT) using half-fan scan. A subset of the CBCT projections and the prior planning CT were used to estimate the LP-CBCT images using the weighted free-form deformation method. The limited projections are clusteringly sampled within fifteen sub-angles in 360° in order to simulate the fast 1 min scan for 4D-CBCT. The estimated LP-CBCTs were rigidly registered to the planning CT to determine the clinical shifts needed for patient setup corrections, which were compared with shifts determined by the CBCT for evaluation. Both manual and automatic registrations were performed in order to compare the systematic registration errors. Fifty CBCT volumes were obtained from the eleven patients in fifty fractions for this pilot clinical study. For the CBCT images, the mean (±standard deviation) shifts between CBCT and planning CT from manual registration in left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions are 1.1 ± 1.2 mm, 2.1 ± 1.9 mm, 5.2 ± 3.6 mm, respectively. The mean deviation difference between shifts determined by CBCT and LP-CBCT images are 0.3 ± 0.5 mm, 0.5 ± 0.8 mm, 0.4 ± 0.3 mm, in LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. The mean vector length of CBCT shift for all fractions is 6.1 ± 3.6 mm, and the mean vector length difference between CBCT and LP-CBCT for all fractions studied is 1.0 ± 0.9 mm. The automatic registrations yield similar results as manual registrations. The pilot clinical study shows that LP-CBCT localization offers comparable accuracy to CBCT localization for daily tumor positioning while reducing the projection number to 1/10 for patients receiving breath hold lung radiation treatment. The cluster projection sampling in this study also shows the feasibility of reconstructing fast 4D-CBCT from 1 min 3D-CBCT scan.
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.