ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Quantifying the accuracy of deformable image registration for cone-beam computed tomography with a physical phantom.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative assessment of CBCT image quality metrics and their translation to clinical Art workflow performance in breast cancer patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Multi-institutional study on image quality for a novel CBCT solution on O-ring linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- MRI-only based material mass density and relative stopping power estimation via deep learning for proton therapy: a preliminary study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Creating patient-specific digital phantoms with a longitudinal atlas for evaluating deformable CT-CBCT registration in adaptive lung radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Synthetic CT-aided multiorgan segmentation for CBCT-guided adaptive pancreatic radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Head-and-neck organs-at-risk auto-delineation using dual pyramid networks for CBCT-guided adaptive radiotherapy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Geometric and Dosimetric Evaluation of Deep Learning-Based Automatic Delineation on CBCT-Synthesized CT and Planning CT for Breast Cancer Adaptive Radiotherapy: A Multi-Institutional Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- A Review of the Robust Optimization Process and Advances with Monte Carlo in the Proton Therapy Management of Head and Neck Tumors.International journal of particle therapy · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of deformable image registration on MRI with a physical phantom.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Comparison of Three Commercial Methods of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Dosimetric Analysis of Head-and-Neck Patients with Weight Loss.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Clinical Assessment of a Novel Ring Gantry Linear Accelerator-Mounted Helical Fan-Beam kVCT System.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeKilo-voltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is widely used for patient alignment, contour propagation, and adaptive treatment planning in radiation therapy. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of deformable image registration (DIR) for CBCT under various imaging protocols with different noise and patient dose levels.
methodsA physical phantom previously developed to facilitate end-to-end testing of the DIR accuracy was used with Varian Velocity v4.0 software to evaluate the performance of image registration from CT to CT, CBCT to CT, and CBCT to CBCT. The phantom is acrylic and includes several inserts that simulate different tissue shapes and properties. Deformations and anatomic changes were simulated by changing the rotations of both the phantom and the inserts. CT images (from a head and neck protocol) and CBCT images (from pelvis, head and "Image Gently" protocols) were obtained with different image noise and dose levels. Large inserts were filled with Mobil DTE oil to simulate soft tissue, and small inserts were filled with bone materials. All inserts were contoured before the DIR process to provide a ground truth contour size and shape for comparison. After the DIR process, all deformed contours were compared with the originals using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA). Both large and small volume of interests (VOIs) for DIR volume selection were tested by simulating a DIR process that included whole patient image volume and clinical target volumes (CTV) only (for CTVs propagation).
resultsFor cross-modality DIR registration (CT to CBCT), the DSC were >0.8 and the MDA were <3 mm for CBCT pelvis, and CBCT head protocols. For CBCT to CBCT and CT to CT, the DIR accuracy was improved relative to the cross-modality tests. For smaller VOIs, the DSC were >0.8 and MDA <2 mm for all modalities.
conclusionsThe accuracy of DIR depends on the quality of the CBCT image at different dose and noise levels.
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.