ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Head and neck cancer patient positioning using synthetic CT data in MRI-only radiation therapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Step-by-step assessment of MRI-only workflow in pelvic radiotherapy: feasibility and practical implementation.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Incidental findings and safety events from magnetic resonance imaging simulation for head and neck radiation treatment planning: A single institution experience.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- The Use of MR-Guided Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer and Recommended Reporting Guidance.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2024Review
- Evaluating the Hounsfield unit assignment and dose differences between CT-based standard and deep learning-based synthetic CT images for MRI-only radiation therapy of the head and neck.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Synthetic CTs for MRI-only brain RT treatment: integration of immobilization systems.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023Article
- Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience towards the Diagnosis of Neurological Disorders-A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Head and neck cancer patient positioning using synthetic CT data in MRI-only radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe accuracy and precision of patient positioning is crucial in radiotherapy; however, there are no publications available using synthetic computed tomography (sCT) that evaluate rotations in head and neck (H&N) patients positioning or the effect of translation and rotation combined. The aim of this work was to evaluate the differences between using sCT with the CT for 2D- and 3D-patient positioning in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only workflow.
methodsThis study included 14 H&N cancer patients, with generated sCT data (MRI Planner v2.2) and the CT deformably registered to the MRI. Patient positioning was evaluated by comparing sCT against CT data: 3D cone beam CT (CBCT) was registered to the deformed CT (dCT) and sCT in six degrees of freedom (DoF) with a rigid auto-registration algorithm and bone threshold, and 2D deformed digital reconstructed radiographs (dDRR) and synthetic DRRs (sDRR) were manually registered to orthogonal projections in five DoF by six blinded observers. The difference in displacement in all DoF were calculated for dCT and sCT, as well as for dDRR and sDRR. The interobserver variation was evaluated by separate application of the paired dDRR and sDRR registration matrices to the original coordinates of the planning target volume (PTV) structures and calculation of the Euclidean distance between the corresponding points. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated between dDRR/sDRR-registered PTVs.
resultsThe mean difference in patient positioning using CBCT was <0.7 mm and <0.3° and using orthogonal projections <0.4 mm and <0.2° in all directions. The maximum Euclidean distance was 5.1 mm, the corresponding mean (1SD) Euclidean distance and mean DSC were 3.5 ± 0.7 mm and 0.93, respectively.
conclusionsThis study shows that the sCT-based patient positioning gives a comparable result with that based on CT images, allowing sCT to replace CT as reference for patient treatment positioning.
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.