ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2024
Commissioning and Validation of CT Number to SPR Calibration in Carbon Ion Therapy Facility.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Synthetic Computed Tomography in Prostate Cancer Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: Impact of Fixation Shell.International journal of particle therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We performed computed tomography (CT)-stopping power ratio (SPR) calibration in a carbon-ion therapy facility and evaluated SPR estimation accuracy. Materials and Methods: A polybinary tissue model method was used for the calibration of CT numbers and SPR. As a verification by dose calculation, we created a virtual phantom to which the CT-SPR calibration table was applied. Then, SPR was calculated from the change in the range of the treatment planning beam when changing to 19 different CT numbers, and the accuracy of the treatment planning system (TPS) calculation of SPR values from the CT-SPR calibration table was validated. As a verification by measurement, 5 materials (water, milk, olive oil, ethanol, 40% K Results: The results of the dose calculations of the TPS showed that the results agreed within 1% for the lower CT numbers up to 1000 HU, but there was a difference of 3.0% in the higher CT number volume. The difference between the SPR calculated by TPS and the SPR caused by the difference in the energy of the incident particles agreed within 0.51%. The accuracy of SPR estimation was measured, and the error was within 2% for all materials tested. Conclusion: These results indicate that the SPR estimation errors are within the range of errors that can be expected in particle therapy. From commissioning and verification results, the CT-SPR calibration table obtained during this commissioning process is clinically applicable.
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.