Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38520072›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

ACR benchmark testing of a novel high-speed ring-gantry linac kV-CBCT system.

Allison Haertter, Michael Salerno, Brandon Koger, Christopher Kennedy, Michelle Alonso-Basanta, Lei Dong, Boon-Keng Teo, Taoran Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Allison HaertterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael SalernoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Brandon KogerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Christopher KennedyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michelle Alonso-BasantaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Lei DongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Boon-Keng TeoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Taoran LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new generation cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) system with new hardware design and advanced image reconstruction algorithms is available for radiation treatment simulation or adaptive radiotherapy (HyperSight CBCT imaging solution, Varian Medical Systems-a Siemens Healthineers company). This study assesses the CBCT image quality metrics using the criteria routinely used for diagnostic CT scanner accreditation as a first step towards the future use of HyperSight CBCT images for treatment planning and target/organ delineations. Image performance was evaluated using American College of Radiology (ACR) Program accreditation phantom tests for diagnostic computed tomography systems (CTs) and compared HyperSight images with a standard treatment planning diagnostic CT scanner (Siemens SOMATOM Edge) and with existing CBCT systems (Varian TrueBeam version 2.7 and Varian Halcyon version 2.0).  Image quality performance for all Varian HyperSight CBCT vendor-provided imaging protocols were assessed using ACR head and body ring CT phantoms, then compared to existing imaging modalities. Image quality analysis metrics included contrast-to-noise (CNR), spatial resolution, Hounsfield number (HU) accuracy, image scaling, and uniformity. All image quality assessments were made following the recommendations and passing criteria provided by the ACR. The Varian HyperSight CBCT imaging system demonstrated excellent image quality, with the majority of vendor-provided imaging protocols capable of passing all ACR CT accreditation standards. Nearly all (8/11) vendor-provided protocols passed ACR criteria using the ACR head phantom, with the Abdomen Large, Pelvis Large, and H&N vendor-provided protocols produced HU uniformity values slightly exceeding passing criteria but remained within the allowable minor deviation levels (5-7 HU maximum differences). Compared to other existing CT and CBCT imaging modalities, both HyperSight Head and Pelvis imaging protocols matched the performance of the SOMATOM CT scanner, and both the HyperSight and SOMATOM CT substantially surpassed the performance of the Halcyon 2.0 and TrueBeam version 2.7 systems. Varian HyperSight CBCT imaging system could pass almost all tests for all vendor-provided protocols using ACR accreditation criteria, with image quality similar to those produced by diagnostic CT scanners and significantly better than existing linac-based CBCT imaging systems.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingCone-Beam Computed TomographyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedParticle AcceleratorsPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAccreditationAlgorithmsHumansRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedACRCBCTtreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID38520072
PMCPMC11087172
OpenAlexW4393116476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.