ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2020
Evaluation of an
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning methods for enhancing cone-beam CT image quality toward adaptive radiation therapy: A systematic review.Medical physics · 2022Pooled it
- 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
- Interfractional body surface monitoring using daily cone-beam computed tomography imaging for pediatric adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction for a commercial proton beam therapy system.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Investigation of 2D anti-scatter grid implementation in a gantry-mounted cone beam computed tomography system for proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- CBCT-Based Dose Monitoring and Adaptive Planning Triggers in Head and Neck PBS Proton Therapy.Cancers · 2023Article
- Deep learning-based 4D-synthetic CTs from sparse-view CBCTs for dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Adaptive proton therapy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Review
- Impact of interfractional target motion in locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated with spot scanning proton therapy using an internal target volume strategy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeScatter correction of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) projections may enable accurate online dose-delivery estimations in photon and proton-based radiotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of scatter correction in CBCT-based proton range/dose calculations, in scans acquired in both proton and photon gantries. MATERIAL AND
methodsCBCT projections of a Catphan and an Alderson phantom were acquired on both a proton and a photon gantry. The scatter corrected CBCTs (corrCBCTs) and the clinical reconstructions (stdCBCTs) were compared against CTs rigidly registered to the CBCTs (rigidCTs). The CBCTs of the Catphan phantom were segmented by materials for CT number analysis. Water equivalent path length (WEPL) maps were calculated through the Alderson phantom while proton plans optimized on the rigidCT and recalculated on all CBCTs were compared in a gamma analysis.
resultsIn medium and high-density materials, the corrCBCT CT numbers were much closer to those of the rigidCT than the stdCBCTs. E.g. in the 50% bone segmentations the differences were reduced from above 300 HU (with stdCBCT) to around 60-70 HU (with corrCBCT). Differences in WEPL from the rigidCT were typically well below 5 mm for the corrCBCTs, compared to well above 10 mm for the stdCBCTs with the largest deviations in the head and thorax regions. Gamma pass rates (2%/2mm) when comparing CBCT-based dose re-calculations to rigidCT calculations were improved from around 80% (with stdCBCT) to mostly above 90% (with corrCBCT).
conclusionScatter correction leads to substantial artefact reductions, improving accuracy of CBCT-based proton range/dose calculations.
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.