ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
A treatment-site-specific evaluation of commercial synthetic computed tomography solutions for proton therapy.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved synthetic CT generation using surface scan information integrated into a deformable registration algorithm for limited Field of View data.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Technical Considerations on Proton Therapy in NRG's Multi-Institutional Clinical Trials.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026Article
- Case Report: Proton Therapy of a Pregnant Patient With Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Third Trimester Using Synthetic Computed Tomographies for Tumor Monitoring.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Few-shot CBCT-based synthetic CT generation with denoising diffusion probabilistic model.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Synthetic computed tomography techniques for adaptive proton therapy in head and neck cancers.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Comparing methods to improve cone-beam computed tomography for dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluating a CBCT Correction Algorithm for Adaptive Radiotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Despite the superior dose conformity of proton therapy, the dose distribution is sensitive to daily anatomical changes, which can affect treatment accuracy. This study evaluated the dose recalculation accuracy of two synthetic computed tomography (sCT) generation algorithms in a commercial treatment planning system. Materials and methods: The evaluation was conducted for head-and-neck, thorax-and-abdomen, and pelvis sites treated with proton therapy. Thirty patients with two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans each were selected. The sCT images were generated from CBCT scans using two algorithms, Corrected CBCT (corrCBCT) and Virtual CT (vCT). Dose recalculations were performed based on these images for comparison with "ground truth" deformed CTs. Results: The choice of algorithm influenced dose recalculation accuracy, particularly in high dose regions. For head-and-neck cases, the corrCBCT method showed closer agreement with the "ground truth", while for thorax-and-abdomen and pelvis cases, the vCT algorithm yielded better results (mean percentage dose discrepancy of 0.6 %, 1.3 % and 0.5 % for the three sites, respectively, in the high dose region). Head-and-neck and pelvis cases exhibited excellent agreement in high dose regions (2 %/2 mm gamma passing rate >98 %), while thorax-and-abdomen cases exhibited the largest differences, suggesting caution in sCT algorithm usage for this site. Significant systematic differences were observed in the clinical target volume and organ-at-risk doses in head-and-neck and pelvis cases, highlighting the importance of using the correct algorithm. Conclusions: This study provided treatment site-specific recommendations for sCT algorithm selection in proton therapy. The findings offered insights for proton beam centers implementing adaptive radiotherapy workflows.
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.