Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34725829›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2021

Clinical suitability of deep learning based synthetic CTs for adaptive proton therapy of lung cancer.

Adrian Thummerer, Carmen Seller Oria, Paolo Zaffino, Arturs Meijers, Gabriel Guterres Marmitt, Robin Wijsman, Joao Seco, Johannes Albertus Langendijk, Antje-Christin Knopf, Maria Francesca Spadea and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of volumetric image guidance in proton therapy.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Deep Learning for CT Synthesis in Radiotherapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Artificial intelligence for treatment delivery: image-guided radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Are offline ART decisions for NSCLC impacted by the type of dose calculation algorithm?Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Emerging technologies for cancer therapy using accelerated particles.Progress in particle and nuclear physics · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Adrian ThummererDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Carmen Seller OriaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Paolo ZaffinoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Arturs MeijersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gabriel Guterres MarmittDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Robin WijsmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Joao SecoDepartment of Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Deutsches Krebsfoschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Johannes Albertus LangendijkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Antje-Christin KnopfDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maria Francesca SpadeaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Stefan BothDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NLMagna Graecia University · ITUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLDKFZ-ZMBH Alliance · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdaptive proton therapy (APT) of lung cancer patients requires frequent volumetric imaging of diagnostic quality. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) can provide these daily images, but x-ray scattering limits CBCT-image quality and hampers dose calculation accuracy. The purpose of this study was to generate CBCT-based synthetic CTs using a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) and investigate image quality and clinical suitability for proton dose calculations in lung cancer patients.

methodsA dataset of 33 thoracic cancer patients, containing CBCTs, same-day repeat CTs (rCT), planning-CTs (pCTs), and clinical proton treatment plans, was used to train and evaluate a DCNN with and without a pCT-based correction method. Mean absolute error (MAE), mean error (ME), peak signal-to-noise ratio, and structural similarity were used to quantify image quality. The evaluation of clinical suitability was based on recalculation of clinical proton treatment plans. Gamma pass ratios, mean dose to target volumes and organs at risk, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were calculated. Furthermore, proton radiography simulations were performed to assess the HU-accuracy of sCTs in terms of range errors.

resultsOn average, sCTs without correction resulted in a MAE of 34 ± 6 HU and ME of 4 ± 8 HU. The correction reduced the MAE to 31 ± 4HU (ME to 2 ± 4HU). Average 3%/3 mm gamma pass ratios increased from 93.7% to 96.8%, when the correction was applied. The patient specific correction reduced mean proton range errors from 1.5 to 1.1 mm. Relative mean target dose differences between sCTs and rCT were below ± 0.5% for all patients and both synthetic CTs (with/without correction). NTCP values showed high agreement between sCTs and rCT (<2%).

conclusionCBCT-based sCTs can enable accurate proton dose calculations for APT of lung cancer patients. The patient specific correction method increased the image quality and dosimetric accuracy but had only a limited influence on clinically relevant parameters.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLung NeoplasmsProton TherapyCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedadaptive proton therapycone-beam computed tomographydeep learninglung cancersynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID34725829
PMCPMC9299115
OpenAlexW3208910722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.