ArticleScientific reports2024
Dosimetric impact of stopping power for human bone porosity with dual-energy computed tomography in scanned carbon-ion therapy treatment planning.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Theoretical assessment of DECT noise on physical and biological dose accuracy in carbon-ion radiation therapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Survey data analysis of treatment planning methods in particle therapy facilities.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of two dual-energy CT-based methods for proton stopping-power ratio estimation in brain cancer patients with metal implants.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Adsorption of Serum Fetuin onto Octacalcium Phosphate and Its Relation to Osteogenic Property.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Feasibility study for proton dose calculation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on stopping power ratio directly derived from dual energy CT.Frontiers in oncology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Few reports have documented how the accuracy of stopping power ratio (SPR) prediction for porous bone tissue affects the dose distribution of scanned carbon-ion beam therapy. The estimated SPR based on single-energy computed tomography (SECT) and dual-energy CT (DECT) were compared for the femur of a Rando phantom which simulates the porosity of human bone, NEOBONE which is the hydroxyapatite synthetic bone substitute, and soft tissue samples. Dose differences between SECT and DECT were evaluated for a scanned carbon-ion therapy treatment plan for the Rando phantom. The difference in the water equivalent length was measured to extract the SPR of the examined samples. The differences for SPR estimated from the DECT-SPR conversion were small with - 1.8% and - 3.3% for the Rando phantom femur and NEOBONE, respectively, whereas the differences for SECT-SPR were between 7.6 and 70.7%, illustrating a 1.5-mm shift of the range and a dose difference of 13.3% at maximum point in the evaluation of the dose distribution. This study demonstrated that the DECT-SPR conversion method better estimated the SPR of the porosity of bone tissues than SECT-SPR followed by the accurate range of the carbon-ion beams on carbon-ion dose calculations.
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.