ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Proton dose calculation on cone-beam computed tomography using unsupervised 3D deep learning networks.
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative stability of CT numbers in novel cone-beam CT: An intra-institution cross-scanner and longitudinal analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical 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
- Article
- Imaging, automation and workflow challenges for online adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Enhancing Image Quality in Dental-Maxillofacial CBCT: The Impact of Iterative Reconstruction and AI on Noise Reduction-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparing methods to improve cone-beam computed tomography for dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Poor image quality of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images can hinder proton dose calculation to assess the influence of anatomy changes. The aim of this study was to evaluate image quality and proton dose calculation accuracy of synthetic CTs generated from CBCT using unsupervised 3D deep-learning networks. Materials and methods: A total of 102 head-and-neck cancer patients were used to train (N=82) and test (N=20) i) a cycle-consistent generative adversarial network, ii) a contrastive unpaired translation, and iii) a fusion of the two (CycleCUT). For patients in the test set, a repeat CT was deformably registered to a same-day CBCT to create a ground-truth CT for comparison. The proton plan was re-calculated on the ground-truth CT and synthetic CTs. The image quality of the synthetic CTs was evaluated using peak signal-to-noise ratio, structural similarity index measure, mean error, and mean absolute error (MAE). Proton dose calculation accuracy was assessed through 3D gamma analysis and dose-volume-histogram parameters. Results: All synthetic CTs accurately preserved the CBCT anatomy (verified by visual inspection) while improving the image quality. The CycleCUT network had slightly improved image quality compared to the other networks (MAE in body: 53 Hounsfield units (HU) vs. 54/55 HU). All networks had similar proton dose calculation accuracy with gamma passing rate above 97%. Conclusions: All three evaluated networks generated synthetic CT images with dose distributions comparable to those of conventional fan-beam CT. The synthetic CT generation was fast, making all networks feasible for adaptive proton therapy.
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.