ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Onboard cone-beam CT-based replan evaluation for head and neck proton 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 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of volumetric image guidance in proton therapy.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Offline Plan Adaptation in Robustly Optimized CBCT-Guided Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Beam Therapy: Lessons From a Real-World Cohort.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal CT number characterization of a novel upright CT for proton therapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Nominal plan robustness may predict plan degradation in proton therapy for oropharyngeal head-and-neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Interfractional body surface monitoring using daily cone-beam computed tomography imaging for pediatric adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Unsupervised Deep Learning for Synthetic CT Generation from CBCT Images for Proton and Carbon Ion Therapy for Paediatric Patients.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based Fast Volumetric Image Generation for Image-guided Proton Radiotherapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2024Article
- Cone-Beam CT Images as an Indicator of QACT During Adaptive Proton Therapy of Extremity Sarcomas.International journal of particle therapy · 2024Article
- Cone beam CT-based adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy assessment using automated planning for head-and-neck cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- An optimized framework for cone-beam computed tomography-based online evaluation for proton therapy.Medical physics · 2023Article
- CBCT-Based Dose Monitoring and Adaptive Planning Triggers in Head and Neck PBS Proton Therapy.Cancers · 2023Article
- Daily Head and Neck Treatment Assessment for Optimal Proton Therapy Planning Robustness.Cancers · 2023Article
- Dosimetric impact of adaptive proton therapy in head and neck cancer - A review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Review
- Onboard cone-beam CT-based replan evaluation for head and neck proton 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
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeQuality assurance computed tomography (QACT) is the current clinical practice in proton therapy to evaluate the needs for replan. QACT could falsely indicate replan because of setup issues that would be solved on the treatment machine. Deforming the treatment planning CT (TPCT) to the pretreatment CBCT may eliminate this issue. We investigated the performance of replan evaluation based on deformed TPCT (TPCTdir) for proton head and neck (H&N) therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-eight H&N datasets along with pretreatment CBCT and QACT were used to validate the method. The changes in body volume were analyzed between the no-replan and replan groups. The dose on the TPCTdir, the deformed QACT (QACTdir), and the QACT were calculated by applying the clinical plans to these image sets. Dosimetric parameters' changes, including ΔD95, ΔDmean, and ΔD1 for the clinical target volumes (CTVs) were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves for replan evaluation based on ΔD95 on QACT and TPCTdir were calculated, using ΔD95 on QACTdir as the reference. A threshold for replan based on ΔD95 on TPCTdir is proposed. The specificities for the proposed method were calculated.
resultsThe changes in the body contour were 95.8 ± 83.8 cc versus 305.0 ± 235.0 cc (p < 0.01) for the no-replan and replan groups, respectively. The ΔD95, ΔDmean, and ΔD1 are all comparable for all the evaluations. The differences between TPCTdir and QACTdir evaluations were 0.30% ± 0.86%, 0.00 ± 0.22 Gy, and -0.17 ± 0.61 Gy for CTV ΔD95, ΔDmean, and ΔD1, respectively. The corresponding differences between the QACT and QACTdir were 0.12% ± 1.1%, 0.02 ± 0.32 Gy, and -0.01 ± 0.71 Gy. CTV ΔD95 > 2.6% in TPCTdir was chosen as the threshold to trigger QACT/replan. The corresponding specificity was 94% and 98% for the clinical practice and the proposed method, respectively.
conclusionsThe replan evaluation based on TPCTdir provides better specificity than that based on the QACT.
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.