ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2018
The impact of mass density variations on an electron Monte Carlo algorithm for radiotherapy dose calculations.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2018. 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.
- Dosimetric impact of material misassignment in linear Boltzmann transport equation-based external beam radiotherapy dose calculation.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Impact of differences in computed tomography value-electron density/physical density conversion tables on calculate dose in low-density areas.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of discrepancies between CT numbers of brain-tissue-equivalent density plug and actual brain tissue on dose calculation accuracy.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the use of diagnostic CT with flattening filter free beams for palliative radiotherapy: Dosimetric impact of scanner calibration variability.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Impact of range uncertainties for intensity-modulated mixed electron-photon radiation therapy.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Multi-Institutional Audit of FLASH and Conventional Dosimetry With a 3D Printed Anatomically Realistic Mouse Phantom.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024Article
- HU-based material conversion for BNCT accurate dose estimation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Physical density estimations of single- and dual-energy CT using material-based forward projection algorithm: a simulation study.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- On the molecular relationship between Hounsfield Unit (HU), mass density, and electron density in computed tomography (CT).PloS one · 2020Article
- Imaging science and development in modern high-precision radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
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
background and purposeA key step in electron Monte Carlo dose calculation requires converting Computed Tomography (CT) numbers from a tomographic acquisition to a mass density. This study investigates the dosimetric consequences of perturbations applied to a calibration table between CT number and mass density. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search was performed to define lower and upper bounds for physically reasonable perturbations to a reference CT number to mass density calibration table. Electron beam dose was calculated for ten patients using these variations and the results were compared to clinical plans originally derived with a reference calibration table. Dose differences both globally and in the Planning Target Volume (PTV) were assessed using dose- and volume-based metrics and 3- dimensional gamma analysis for each patient.
resultsSmall but statistically significant differences were observed between perturbations and reference data for certain metrics including volume of the 50% prescription isodose. Upper and lower variations in CT number to mass density calibration yielded mean values of V50% that were 4.4% larger and 2.1% smaller than reference values respectively. Gamma analysis using 3%/3mm criteria indicated >99% passing rate for the PTV for all patients. Global gamma analysis for some patients showed larger discrepancies possibly due to large electron path lengths through inhomogeneities.
conclusionsIn most patients, physically reasonable perturbations in CT number to mass density curves will not induce clinically significant impact on calculated target dose distributions. Strong dependence of electron transport on voxel material may produce dose speckle throughout the volume. Care should be taken in evaluating critical structures at depths beyond the target volume in highly heterogeneous regions.
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.