Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38369991›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Virtual unenhanced dual-energy computed tomography for photon radiotherapy: The effect on dose distribution and cone-beam computed tomography based position verification.

Maryam Afifah, Marloes C Bulthuis, Karin N Goudschaal, Jolanda M Verbeek-Spijkerman, Tezontl S Rosario, Duncan den Boer, Karel A Hinnen, Arjan Bel, Zdenko van Kesteren

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Maryam AfifahAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Radiation Oncology, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marloes C BulthuisAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Karin N GoudschaalAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jolanda M Verbeek-SpijkermanAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tezontl S RosarioAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Radiation Oncology, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Duncan den BoerAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Radiation Oncology, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Karel A HinnenAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Arjan BelAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Zdenko van KesterenAmsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Virtual Unenhanced images (VUE) from contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) eliminate manual suppression of contrast-enhanced structures (CES) or pre-contrast scans. CT intensity decreases in high-density structures outside the CES following VUE algorithm application. This study assesses VUE's impact on the radiotherapy workflow of gynecological tumors, comparing dose distribution and cone-beam CT-based (CBCT) position verification to contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images. Materials and Methods: A total of 14 gynecological patients with contrast-enhanced CT simulation were included. Two CT images were reconstructed: CECT and VUE. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans generated on CECT were recalculated on VUE using both the CECT lookup table (LUT) and a dedicated VUE LUT. Gamma analysis assessed 3D dose distributions. CECT and VUE images were retrospectively registered to daily CBCT using Chamfer matching algorithm.. Results: Planning target volume Conclusions: VUE imaging in the radiotherapy workflow is feasible, showing comparable dose distributions and improved CBCT registration results compared to CECT. VUE enables automated bone registration, limiting inter-observer variation in the Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) process.

Indexed as

Contrast-enhanced CTDual-energy CTGynecological irradiationPhoton therapyVirtual non-contrastVirtual unenhanced

Identifiers

PMID38369991
PMCPMC10869258

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.