ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
How does CBCT reconstruction algorithm impact on deformably mapped targets and accumulated dose distributions?
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How does CBCT reconstruction algorithm impact on deformably mapped targets and accumulated dose distributions?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe performed quantitative analysis of differences in deformable image registration (DIR) and deformable dose accumulation (DDA) computed on CBCT datasets reconstructed using the standard (Feldkamp-Davis-Kress: FDK_CBCT) and a novel iterative (iterative_CBCT) CBCT reconstruction algorithms.
methodsBoth FDK_CBCT and iterative_CBCT images were reconstructed for 323 fractions of treatment for 10 prostate cancer patients. Planning CT images were deformably registered to each CBCT image data set. After daily dose distributions were computed, they were mapped to planning CT to obtain deformed doses. Dosimetric and image registration results based CBCT images reconstructed by two algorithms were compared at three levels: (A) voxel doses over entire dose calculation volume, (B) clinical constraint results on targets and sensitive structures, and (C) contours propagated to CBCT images using DIR results based on three algorithms (SmartAdapt, Velocity, and Elastix) were compared with manually delineated contours as ground truth.
results(A) Average daily dose differences and average normalized DDA differences between FDK_CBCT and iterative_CBCT were ≤1 cGy. Maximum daily point dose differences increased from 0.22 ± 0.06 Gy (before the deformable dose mapping operation) to 1.33 ± 0.38 Gy after the deformable dose mapping. Maximum differences of normalized DDA per fraction were up to 0.80 Gy (0.42 ± 0.19 Gy). (B) Differences in target minimum doses were up to 8.31 Gy (-0.62 ± 4.60 Gy) and differences in critical structure doses were 0.70 ± 1.49 Gy. (C) For mapped prostate contours based on iterative_CBCT (relative to standard FDK_CBCT), dice similarity coefficient increased by 0.10 ± 0.09 (p < 0.0001), mass center distances decreased by 2.5 ± 3.0 mm (p < 0.00005), and Hausdorff distances decreased by 3.3 ± 4.4 mm (p < 0.00015).
conclusionsThe new iterative CBCT reconstruction algorithm leads to different mapped volumes of interest, deformed and cumulative doses than results based on conventional FDK_CBCT.
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.