ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
On the evaluation of mobile target trajectory between four-dimensional computer tomography and four-dimensional cone-beam computer tomography.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of 4DCT and 4DCBCT for motion and volume measurement accuracy in a dynamic phantom.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Application of respiratory motion management technology for patients with lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (Review).Oncology letters · 2025Review
- The edge visualization metric: Quantifying the improvement of lung SBRT target definition with 4D CBCT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFor mobile lung tumors, four-dimensional computer tomography (4D CT) is often used for simulation and treatment planning. Localization accuracy remains a challenge in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments. An attractive image guidance method to increase localization accuracy is 4D cone-beam CT (CBCT) as it allows for visualization of tumor motion with reduced motion artifacts. However, acquisition and reconstruction of 4D CBCT differ from that of 4D CT. This study evaluates the discrepancies between the reconstructed motion of 4D CBCT and 4D CT imaging over a wide range of sine target motion parameters and patient waveforms.
methodsA thorax motion phantom was used to examine 24 sine motions with varying amplitudes and cycle times and seven patient waveforms. Each programmed motion was imaged using 4D CT and 4D CBCT. The images were processed to auto segment the target. For sine motion, the target centroid at each phase was fitted to a sinusoidal curve to evaluate equivalence in amplitude between the two imaging modalities. The patient waveform motion was evaluated based on the average 4D data sets.
resultsThe mean difference and root-mean-square-error between the two modalities for sine motion were -0.35 ± 0.22 and 0.60 mm, respectively, with 4D CBCT slightly overestimating amplitude compared with 4D CT. The two imaging methods were determined to be significantly equivalent within ±1 mm based on two one-sided t tests (p < 0.001). For patient-specific motion, the mean difference was 1.5 ± 2.1 (0.8 ± 0.6 without outlier), 0.4 ± 0.3, and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm for superior/inferior (SI), anterior/posterior (AP), and left/right (LR), respectively.
conclusionIn cases where 4D CT is used to image mobile tumors, 4D CBCT is an attractive localization method due to its assessment of motion with respect to 4D CT, particularly for lung SBRT treatments where accuracy is paramount.
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.