ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023
Results of a multicenter 4D computed tomography quality assurance audit: Evaluating image accuracy and consistency.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A phantom study of internal target volume and mid-position accuracy in adaptive and conventional four-dimensional computed tomography across regular and irregular motion.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Development of a novel 3D-printed dynamic anthropomorphic thorax phantom for evaluation of four-dimensional computed tomography.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- From computed tomography innovation to routine clinical application in radiation oncology - A joint initiative of close collaboration.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: 4D Computed Tomography (4DCT) technology captures the location and movement of tumors and nearby organs at risk over time. In this study, a multi-institutional multi-vendor 4DCT audit was initiated to assess the accuracy of current imaging protocols. Materials and methods: Twelve centers, including thirteen scanners performed a 4DCT acquisition of a dynamic thorax phantom using the institution's own protocol with the in-house breathing monitoring system. Five regular and three irregular breathing patterns were used. Image acquisition and reconstruction were followed by automated image analysis with our in-house developed 4DCT QA program (QAMotion). CT number accuracy, volume deviation, amplitude deviation, and spatial integrity were assessed per pattern using both the segmented volumes and line profiles. Results: Regular breathing curves showed relatively accurate results across all institutions, with mean volume and CT number deviations and median amplitude deviation below 2%, 5 HU and 2 mm, respectively. Results obtained for irregular patterns showed more variation across the institutions. Volume and CT number deviations co-occurred with a blurring of the sphere, interpolation, or double-structure artifacts that were confirmed through the line profiles. For some of the irregular patterns, amplitude deviations up to 6 mm were observed. Maximum Intensity Projection (MaxIP) correctly captured the applied motion amplitude with deviations across all institutions within 2 mm except for double amplitude pattern. Conclusions: All centers invited to participate in the audit responded positively, highlighting the need for a comprehensive yet easy-to-execute 4DCT quality assurance program. The largest variances between the results from one institution to another confirmed that a standardized 4DCT audit is warranted.
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.