Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36200179›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Assessment of CBCT-based synthetic CT generation accuracy for adaptive radiotherapy planning.

Christopher J O'Hara, David Bird, Bashar Al-Qaisieh, Richard Speight

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Christopher J O'HaraLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
David BirdLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Bashar Al-QaisiehLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Richard SpeightLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK Centres Network Accelerator Award A21993Leeds Hospitals Charity 1T07NIHR Research Trainees Coordinating Centre ICA-CDRF-2017-03-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCone-beam CT (CBCT)-based synthetic CT (sCT) dose calculation has the potential to make the adaptive radiotherapy (ART) pathway more efficient while removing subjectivity. This study assessed four sCT generation methods using 15 head-and-neck rescanned ART patients. Each patient's planning CT (pCT), rescan CT (rCT), and CBCT post-rCT was acquired with the CBCT deformably registered to the rCT (dCBCT).

methodsThe four methods investigated were as follows: method 1-deformably registering the pCT to the dCBCT. Method 2-assigning six mass density values to the dCBCT. Method 3-iteratively removing artifacts and correcting the dCBCT Hounsfield units (HU). Method 4-using a cycle general adversarial network machine learning model (trained with 45 paired pCT and CBCT). Treatment plans were created on the rCT and recalculated on each sCT. Planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) structures were contoured by clinicians on the rCT (high-dose PTV, low-dose PTV, spinal canal, larynx, brainstem, and parotids) to allow the assessment of dose-volume histogram statistics at clinically relevant points.

resultsThe HU mean absolute error (MAE) and minimum dose gamma index pass rate (2%/2 mm) were calculated, and the generation time was measured for 15 patients using the rCT as the comparator. For methods 1-4 the MAE, gamma index analysis, and generation time were as follows: 59.7 HU, 100.0%, and 143 s; 164.2 HU, 95.2%, and 232 s; 75.7 HU, 99.9%, and 153 s; and 79.4 HU, 99.8%, and 112 s, respectively. Dose differences for PTVs and OARs were all <0.3 Gy except for method 2 (<0.5 Gy).

conclusionAll methods were considered clinically viable. The machine learning method was found to be most suitable for clinical implementation due to its high dosimetric accuracy and short generation time. Further investigation is required for larger anatomical changes between the CBCT and pCT and for other anatomical sites.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedSpiral Cone-Beam Computed TomographyCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedadaptive radiotherapyCBCTCBCT-based sCTCBCT dosimetric accuracysynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID36200179
PMCPMC9680578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.