Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37397874›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023

Clinical evaluation of synthetic computed tomography methods in adaptive proton therapy of lung cancer patients.

Vicki Trier Taasti, Djoya Hattu, Stephanie Peeters, Anke van der Salm, Judith van Loon, Dirk de Ruysscher, Rasmus Nilsson, Sebastian Andersson, Erik Engwall, Mirko Unipan and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Maintaining quality of scientific peer-review and publishing inPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Deep Learning for CT Synthesis in Radiotherapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  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

11 authors.

Vicki Trier TaastiDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Djoya HattuDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stephanie PeetersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anke van der SalmDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Judith van LoonDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Dirk de RuysscherDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rasmus NilssonRaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sebastian AnderssonRaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik EngwallRaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mirko UnipanDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Richard CantersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Efficient workflows for adaptive proton therapy are of high importance. This study evaluated the possibility to replace repeat-CTs (reCTs) with synthetic CTs (sCTs), created based on cone-beam CTs (CBCTs), for flagging the need of plan adaptations in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment of lung cancer patients. Materials and methods: Forty-two IMPT patients were retrospectively included. For each patient, one CBCT and a same-day reCT were included. Two commercial sCT methods were applied; one based on CBCT number correction (Cor-sCT), and one based on deformable image registration (DIR-sCT). The clinical reCT workflow (deformable contour propagation and robust dose re-computation) was performed on the reCT as well as the two sCTs. The deformed target contours on the reCT/sCTs were checked by radiation oncologists and edited if needed. A dose-volume-histogram triggered plan adaptation method was compared between the reCT and the sCTs; patients needing a plan adaptation on the reCT but not on the sCT were denoted false negatives. As secondary evaluation, dose-volume-histogram comparison and gamma analysis (2%/2mm) were performed between the reCT and sCTs. Results: There were five false negatives, two for Cor-sCT and three for DIR-sCT. However, three of these were only minor, and one was caused by tumour position differences between the reCT and CBCT and not by sCT quality issues. An average gamma pass rate of 93% was obtained for both sCT methods. Conclusion: Both sCT methods were judged to be of clinical quality and valuable for reducing the amount of reCT acquisitions.

Indexed as

Adaptive proton therapyCone-beam CTEfficiency gainLung cancerProton therapySynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID37397874
PMCPMC10314284

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.