ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Virtual clinical trial-based study for clinical evaluation of projection-reduced low-dose cone-beam CT for image guided radiotherapy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a patient-specific cone-beam computed tomography dose optimization model using machine learning in image-guided radiation therapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Dose distributions of proton therapy plans are robust against lowering the resolution of CTs combined with increasing noise.Medical physics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Repeated cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) increase the health risk of radiation-induced malignancies. Patient-enrolled studies to optimize scan protocols are inadequate. We proposed a virtual clinical trial-based approach to evaluate projection-reduced low-dose CBCT for IGRT. Materials and methods: A total of 71 patients were virtually enrolled with 26 head, 23 thorax and 22 pelvis scans. Projection numbers of full-dose CBCT scans were reduced to 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8 of the original to simulate low-dose scans. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values in fat and muscle were measured in the full-dose and low-dose images. CBCT images were registered to planning CT to derive 6-degree-of-freedom couch shifts. Registration errors were statistically analyzed with the Wilcoxon paired signed-rank test. Results: As projection numbers were reduced, CNR values descended and the magnitude of registration errors increased. The mean CNR values of full-dose and half-dose CBCT were >3.0. For full-dose and low-dose CBCT (i.e. 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8 full-dose), the mean registration errors were< ± 0.4 mm in translational directions (LAT, LNG, VRT) and ±0.2 degree in rotational directions (Pitch, Roll, Yaw); the mean magnitude of registration errors were< 1 mm in translation and< 0.5 degree in rotation. The couch shift differences between full-dose and low-dose CBCT were not statistically significant (p>0.05) in all the directions. Conclusion: The results indicate that while the impact of dose-reduction on CBCT couch shifts is not significant, the impact on CNR values is significant. Further validation on optimizing CBCT imaging dose is required.
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.