ArticleJournal of medical physics
Impact of Acquisition Protocols on Accuracy of Dose Calculation Based on XVI Cone Beam Computed Tomography.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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 image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT)-based dose calculation accuracy using cone-beam, megavoltage, and kilovoltage CT modalities.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Assessment of TrueBeam kV Cone-Beam CT Image Quality and the Clinical Impact of Calibration Drift.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Multi-modal comparison of murine and human incisal dentin-enamel junctions.Acta biochimica Polonica · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this work is to study the impact of acquisition protocols on the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based dose calculation and to determinate its limits from image characteristics such as image quality, Hounsfield numbers consistency, and restrictive sizes of volume acquisition, compared to the CT imaging for the different anatomy localizations: head and neck (H&N), thorax, and pelvis. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this work, we used a routine on-board imaging CBCT of the XVI system (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden). Dosimetric calculations performed on CT images require the knowledge of the Hounsfield unit-relative electron density (HU-ReD) calibration curve, which is determined for each imaging technology and must be adapted to the imaging acquisition parameters (filter/field of view). The accuracy of the dose calculation from CBCT images strongly depends on the quality of these images and also on the appropriate correspondence to the electronic densities, which will be used by the treatment planning system to simulate the dose distribution. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of the dose calculation for each protocol, as already pointed in many studies.
resultsAs a result, the protocols that give better results in terms of dose calculation are F0S20 for the H&N region and F1M20 for the thoracic and pelvic regions, with an error <2% compared to results obtained with CT images. In addition, the dose distributions obtained with CT and CBCT imaging modalities were compared by two different methods. The first comparison was done by gamma index in three planes (sagittal, coronal, and transverse) with 2%; 2 mm criteria. The results showed good correspondence, with more than 95% of points passed the criteria. We also compared the target volume, the organs at risk (OARs), and the maximum and minimum doses for the three localizations (H&N, thorax, and pelvis) in CT and CBCT imaging modalities using a Rando phantom.
conclusionsThe choice of the adequate CBCT acquisition protocol and the appropriate phantom to determine the HU-ReD calibration curve provides a better precision in the calculation of dose on CBCT images. This allows improving the results obtained when using the HU-ReD calibration method for dose calculation in adaptive radiotherapy.
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.