ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023
Using density computed tomography images for photon dose calculations in radiation oncology: A patient study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dosimetric Impact and Correction of Lipiodol Deposition on Photon-Beam Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using a Novel Simulation Model.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- From computed tomography innovation to routine clinical application in radiation oncology - A joint initiative of close collaboration.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- A Dosimetric Comparison Study for Blood Irradiation Employing Different Medium and Algorithms in Clinical Linear Accelerator.Journal of blood medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Conventional workflows for dose calculations require conversions between Hounsfield Units (HU) and the mass or electron density for Computed Tomography (CT) images in the Treatment Planning System (TPS). These conversions are scanner- and mostly kVp-dependent. A density representation or reconstruction at the CT level can potentially simplify the workflow. This study aimed to investigate the agreement between these two methods for patients and different calculation algorithms. Materials and methods: Density conversions for conventional HU-density conversions were first established using two phantoms with appropriate inserts. Next, the differences in density and dose calculations between both methods were assessed using 95% Limits of Agreement (LOA) Bland-Altman analysis for 44 consecutive clinical patient cases. These cases represented a mix of indications, algorithms (collapsed cone, convolution superposition, ray tracing, finite-size pencil beam, and Monte Carlo), and scan kVp (80 to 140) in two different commercial TPS. Results: No statistically significant bias in density or dose calculations was found between the two methods. Furthermore, 95% LOAs between both methods were ±0.05 g/cm Conclusions: The in vivo density-reconstructed images at the CT level were assessed to be equivalent. Therefore, they can simplify and improve clinical workflows, allowing patient-specific acquisitions for contouring and density-reconstructed images for dose calculations.
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.