ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Survey on fan-beam computed tomography for radiotherapy: Imaging for dose calculation and delineation.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photon-counting CT for radiotherapy: Qualitative assessment of potential clinical value by semi-structured expert interviews.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Practical considerations for handling implants in proton therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- IR808-ATIPA: A Dual-Function Agent for Enhanced Computed Tomography Imaging and Radiotherapy Sensitization in Cervical Cancer Treatment.Biomaterials research · 2025Article
- Survey on fan-beam computed tomography for radiotherapy: Current implementation and future perspectives of motion management and surface guidance devices.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: To obtain an understanding of current practice, professional needs and future directions in the field of fan-beam CT in RT, a survey was conducted. This work presents the collected information regarding the use of CT imaging for dose calculation and structure delineation. Materials and methods: An online institutional survey was distributed to medical physics experts employed at Belgian and Dutch radiotherapy institutions to assess the status, challenges, and future directions of QA practices for fan-beam CT. A maximum of 143 questions covered topics such as CT scanner availability, CT scanner specifications, QA protocols, treatment simulation workflow, and radiotherapy dose calculation. Answer forms were collected between 1-Sep-2022 and 10-Oct-2022. Results: A 66 % response rate was achieved, yielding data on a total of 58 CT scanners. For MV photon therapy, all single-energy CT scans are reconstructed in Hounsfield Units for delineation or dose calculation, and a direct- or stoichiometric method was used to convert CT numbers for dose calculation. Limited use of dual-energy CT is reported for photon (N = 3) and proton dose calculations (N = 1). For brachytherapy, most institutions adopt water-based dose calculation, while approximately 26 % of the institutions take tissue heterogeneity into account. Commissioning and regular QA include eleven tasks, which are performed by two or more professions (29/31) with varying frequencies. Conclusions: Dual usage of a planning CT limits protocol optimization for both tissue characterization and delineation. DECT has been implemented only gradually. A variation of QA testing frequencies and tests are reported.
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.