Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31247134›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2019

SPARE: Sparse-view reconstruction challenge for 4D cone-beam CT from a 1-min scan.

Chun-Chien Shieh, Yesenia Gonzalez, Bin Li, Xun Jia, Simon Rit, Cyril Mory, Matthew Riblett, Geoffrey Hugo, Yawei Zhang, Zhuoran Jiang and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 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. Machine Learning-Based X-Ray Projection Interpolation for Improved 4D-CBCT Reconstruction.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Probabilistic 3D Correspondence Prediction from Sparse Unsegmented Images.Machine learning in medical imaging. MLMI (Workshop) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

13 authors.

Chun-Chien ShiehACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Yesenia GonzalezUniversity of Texas Southwester Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Bin LiUniversity of Texas Southwester Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Xun JiaUniversity of Texas Southwester Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Simon RitUniv Lyon, INSAyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, UJM-Saint Etienne, CNRS, Inserm, CREATIS UMR 5220, U1206, Centre Léon Bérard, F69373, Lyon, France.
Cyril MoryUniv Lyon, INSAyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, UJM-Saint Etienne, CNRS, Inserm, CREATIS UMR 5220, U1206, Centre Léon Bérard, F69373, Lyon, France.
Matthew RiblettDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Geoffrey HugoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Yawei ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Zhuoran JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Xiaoning LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Lei RenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Paul KeallACRF Image X Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Consistent anatomy registration for lung cancer adaptive radiation therapyR01CA166119 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI HUGO, GEOFFREY D · 2013 to 2017
$1.5M
A Limited-angle Intra-fractional Verification (LIVE) System for SBRT TreatmentsR01CA184173 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI REN, LEI, YIN, FANG-FANG · 2015 to 2018
$1.5M
Australian Government National HealthCancer Institute New South Wales CS00481Medical Research Council APP1120333NCI NIH HHS R01 CA166119NCI NIH HHS R01 CA184173NIH HHS R01CA166119NIH HHS R01-CA184173Senior Principal Research Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCurrently, four-dimensional (4D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) requires a 3-4 min full-fan scan to ensure usable image quality. Recent advancements in sparse-view 4D-CBCT reconstruction have opened the possibility to reduce scan time and dose. The aim of this study is to provide a common framework for systematically evaluating algorithms for 4D-CBCT reconstruction from a 1-min scan. Using this framework, the AAPM-sponsored SPARE Challenge was conducted in 2018 to identify and compare state-of-the-art algorithms.

methodsA clinically realistic CBCT dataset was simulated using patient CT volumes from the 4D-Lung database. The selected patients had multiple 4D-CT sessions, where the first 4D-CT was used as the prior CT, and the rest were used as the ground truth volumes for simulating CBCT projections. A GPU-based Monte Carlo tool was used to simulate the primary, scatter, and quantum noise signals. A total of 32 CBCT scans of nine patients were generated. Additional qualitative analysis was performed on a clinical Varian and clinical Elekta dataset to validate the simulation study. Participants were blinded from the ground truth, and were given 3 months to apply their reconstruction algorithms to the projection data. The submitted reconstructions were analyzed in terms of root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) and structural similarity index (SSIM) with the ground truth within four different region-of-interests (ROI) - patient body, lungs, planning target volume (PTV), and bony anatomy. Geometric accuracy was quantified as the alignment error of the PTV.

resultsTwenty teams participated in the challenge, with five teams completing the challenge. Techniques involved in the five methods included iterative optimization, motion-compensation, and deformation of the prior 4D-CT. All five methods rendered significant reduction in noise and streaking artifacts when compared to the conventional Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) algorithm. The RMS of the three-dimensional (3D) target registration error of the five methods ranged from 1.79 to 3.00 mm. Qualitative observations from the Varian and Elekta datasets mostly concur with those from the simulation dataset. Each of the methods was found to have its own strengths and weaknesses. Overall, the MA-ROOSTER method, which utilizes a 4D-CT motion model for temporal regularization, had the best and most consistent image quality and accuracy.

conclusionThe SPARE Challenge represents the first framework for systematically evaluating state-of-the-art algorithms for 4D-CBCT reconstruction from a 1-min scan. Results suggest the potential for reducing scan time and dose for 4D-CBCT. The challenge dataset and analysis framework are publicly available for benchmarking future reconstruction algorithms.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyFour-Dimensional Computed TomographyAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedTime Factors4D-CBCTgrand challengeimage reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID31247134
PMCPMC6739166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.