ArticleMedical physics2019
MR-based CT metal artifact reduction for head-and-neck photon, electron, and proton radiotherapy.
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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts caused by orthodontic appliances and/or implant-supported prosthesis: a systematic review.Oral radiology · 2023Pooled it
- The application of metal artifact reduction methods on computed tomography scans for radiotherapy applications: A literature review.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Pooled it
- HyperSight CBCT dose calculation accuracy for adaptive head and neck radiotherapy: Results from a prospective clinical trial.Medical physics · 2026Trial
- Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer in the presence of hip prosthesis - is it a contraindication? A narrative review.BMC urology · 2024Review
- Combined clustered scan-based metal artifact reduction algorithm (CCS-MAR) for ultrasound-guided cardiac radioablation.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2022Article
- MRI-induced artifact by a cochlear implant with a novel magnet system: an experimental cadaver study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021Article
- NRG Oncology Survey of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Use in US Proton Therapy Centers.International journal of particle therapy · 2021Article
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
purposeWe investigated the impact on computed tomography (CT) image quality and photon, electron, and proton head-and-neck (H&N) radiotherapy (RT) dose calculations of three CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) approaches: A CT-based algorithm (oMAR Philips Healthcare), manual water override, and our recently presented, Magnetic Resonance (MR)-based kerMAR algorithm. We considered the following three hypotheses: I: Manual water override improves MAR over the CT- and MR-based alternatives; II: The automatic algorithms (oMAR and kerMAR) improve MAR over the uncorrected CT; III: kerMAR improves MAR over oMAR.
methodsWe included a veal shank phantom with/without six metal inserts and nine H&N RT patients with dental implants. We quantified the MAR capabilities by the reduction of outliers in the CT value distribution in regions of interest, and the change in particle range and photon depth at maximum dose.
resultsWater override provided apparent image improvements in the soft tissue region but insignificantly or negatively influenced the dose calculations. We however found significant improvements in image quality and particle range impact, compared to the uncorrected CT, when using oMAR and kerMAR. kerMAR in turn provided superior improvements in terms of high intensity streak suppression compared to oMAR, again with associated impacts on the particle range estimates.
conclusionWe found no benefits of the water override compared to the rest, and tentatively reject hypothesis I. We however found improvements in the automatic algorithms, and thus support for hypothesis II, and found the MR-based kerMAR to improve upon oMAR, supporting hypothesis III.
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.