Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39297079›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

A treatment-site-specific evaluation of commercial synthetic computed tomography solutions for proton therapy.

Ping Lin Yeap, Yun Ming Wong, Kang Hao Lee, Calvin Wei Yang Koh, Kah Seng Lew, Clifford Ghee Ann Chua, Andrew Wibawa, Zubin Master, James Cheow Lei Lee, Sung Yong Park and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Technical Considerations on Proton Therapy in NRG's Multi-Institutional Clinical Trials.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

11 authors.

Ping Lin YeapDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Yun Ming WongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Kang Hao LeeDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Calvin Wei Yang KohDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Kah Seng LewDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Clifford Ghee Ann ChuaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Andrew WibawaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Zubin MasterDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
James Cheow Lei LeeDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Sung Yong ParkDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Hong Qi TanDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Adaptive radiotherapyCone-beam CTProton therapySynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID39297079
PMCPMC11407964

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.