ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
CBCT image quality QA: Establishing a quantitative program.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Image Quality of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Using HyperSight® on the Varian TrueBeam.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Routine kV-CBCT quality assurance in IGRT: Workflow-based comparison of QUART/MaximQA vs Catphan/ARTISCAN.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- 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
- Transfer learning for DL-based Synthetic CT after reconstruction algorithm upgrade in a proton therapy clinic.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Multi-institutional study on image quality for a novel CBCT solution on O-ring linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Characterization of a prototype rapid kilovoltage x-ray image guidance system designed for a linear accelerator radiation therapy unit.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Image Quality Evaluation and Motion Phantom Studies of an Ultra-Fast (6-Second) Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Imaging System on a Ring Gantry Linear Accelerator.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Characterization of kilovoltage x-ray image guidance system with a novel post-processing algorithm on a new slip ring-mounted radiotherapy system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- ACR benchmark testing of a novel high-speed ring-gantry linac kV-CBCT system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Study on the value of multi-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and functional imaging in tumor bioimaging.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRoutine quality assurance (QA) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans used for image-guided radiotherapy is prescribed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (TG)-142 report. For CBCT image quality, TG-142 recommends using clinically established baseline values as QA tolerances. This work examined how image quality parameters vary both across machines of the same model and across different CBCT techniques. Additionally, this work investigated how image quality values are affected by imager recalibration and repeated exposures during routine QA.
methodsCone-beam computed tomography scans of the Catphan 604 phantom were taken on four TrueBeam® and one Edge™ linear accelerator using four manufacturer-provided techniques. TG-142 image quality parameters were calculated for each CBCT scan using SunCHECK Machine™. The variability of each parameter with machine and technique was evaluated using a two-way ANOVA test on a dataset consisting of 200 CBCT scans. The impact of imager calibration on image quality parameters was examined for a subset of three machines using an unpaired Student's t-test. The effect of artifacts appearing on CBCTs taken in rapid succession was characterized and an approach to reduce their appearance was evaluated. Additionally, a set of baselines and tolerances for all image quality metrics was presented.
resultsAll imaging parameters except geometric distortion varied with technique (P < 0.05) and all imaging parameters except slice thickness varied with machine (P < 0.05). Imager calibration can change the expected value of all imaging parameters, though it does not consistently do so. While changes are statistically significant, they may not be clinically significant. Finally, rapid acquisition of CBCT scans can introduce image artifacts that degrade CBCT uniformity.
conclusionsThis work characterized the variability of acquired CBCT data across machines and CBCT techniques along with the impact of imager calibration and rapid CBCT acquisition on image quality.
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.