Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37084884›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2023

Consensus guide on CT-based prediction of stopping-power ratio using a Hounsfield look-up table for proton therapy.

Nils Peters, Vicki Trier Taasti, Benjamin Ackermann, Alessandra Bolsi, Christina Vallhagen Dahlgren, Malte Ellerbrock, Francesco Fracchiolla, Carles Gomà, Joanna Góra, Patricia Cambraia Lopes and 8 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Practical considerations for handling implants in proton therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  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

18 authors.

Nils PetersOncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Germany; Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: nilspetersmp@gmail.com.
Vicki Trier TaastiDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: vicki.taasti@maastro.nl.
Benjamin AckermannHeidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Alessandra BolsiCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.
Christina Vallhagen DahlgrenThe Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden.
Malte EllerbrockHeidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Francesco FracchiollaAzienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS) Protontherapy Department, Trento, Italy.
Carles GomàDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Joanna GóraMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Patricia Cambraia LopesHollandPTC, Delft, the Netherlands.
Ilaria RinaldiDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Koen SalvoAZ Sint-Maarten, Department of Radiotherapy, Mechelen, Belgium.
Ivanka Sojat TarpAarhus University Hospital, Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark.
Alessandro VaiRadiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Thomas BortfeldMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, MA, USA.
Antony LomaxCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.
Christian RichterOncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Patrick WohlfahrtMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Constrained Disentanglement (CODE) Network for CT Metal Artifact Reduction in Radiation TherapyR01EB031102 · NIBIB · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI DE MAN, BRUNO, PAGANETTI, HARALD · 2021 to 2021
$2.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeStudies have shown large variations in stopping-power ratio (SPR) prediction from computed tomography (CT) across European proton centres. To standardise this process, a step-by-step guide on specifying a Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) is presented here. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe HLUT specification process is divided into six steps: Phantom setup, CT acquisition, CT number extraction, SPR determination, HLUT specification, and HLUT validation. Appropriate CT phantoms have a head- and body-sized part, with tissue-equivalent inserts in regard to X-ray and proton interactions. CT numbers are extracted from a region-of-interest covering the inner 70% of each insert in-plane and several axial CT slices in scan direction. For optimal HLUT specification, the SPR of phantom inserts is measured in a proton beam and the SPR of tabulated human tissues is computed stoichiometrically at 100 MeV. Including both phantom inserts and tabulated human tissues increases HLUT stability. Piecewise linear regressions are performed between CT numbers and SPRs for four tissue groups (lung, adipose, soft tissue, and bone) and then connected with straight lines. Finally, a thorough but simple validation is performed.

resultsThe best practices and individual challenges are explained comprehensively for each step. A well-defined strategy for specifying the connection points between the individual line segments of the HLUT is presented. The guide was tested exemplarily on three CT scanners from different vendors, proving its feasibility.

conclusionThe presented step-by-step guide for CT-based HLUT specification with recommendations and examples can contribute to reduce inter-centre variations in SPR prediction.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyCalibrationHumansPhantoms, ImagingProtonsTomography, X-Ray ComputedProtonsHounsfield look-up tableProton range predictionProton therapySingle-energy CTStoichiometric calibrationStopping-power ratio

Identifiers

PMID37084884
PMCPMC10351362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.