ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Clinical validation of MR-generated synthetic CT by MRCAT for brain tumor radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical implementation of deep learning-based synthetic CT for MRI-only volumetric modulated arc therapy in head and neck and pelvic cancer patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Current Landscape of Short-T2 Imaging Techniques in the Musculoskeletal System: The Past, Present and Future.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- Clinical validation of using a commercial synthetic-computed tomography solution for brain MRI-only radiotherapy treatment planning.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of MR-generated synthetic CT by MRCAT for brain tumor radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMRI is an emerging modality in radiotherapy (RT). Accuracy synthetic CT is the prerequisite for implementing MR-only RT planning. This study validated the commercial algorithm of MR for calculating attenuation (MRCAT) in terms of image quality and dosimetric agreement.
methodsBrain tumor cases with 18 treated using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 15 treated using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) were analyzed. Synthetic CTs were resampled referencing planning CT. Treatment plan calculated on planning CT was recalculated on resampled MRCAT. Image quality of selected metrics and dosimetric agreements were assessed by dose-volume-histogram and 3D gamma analysis.
resultsFor IMRT/VMAT and SRS cases, mean error were 23.42 ± 1.05 and 28.39 ± 3.17 HU; mean absolute error were 38.03 ± 1.42 and 52.36 ± 2.63 HU; root mean squared error were 89.09 ± 6.65 and 108.38 ± 12.23 HU; peak signal-to-noise ratio were 29.11 ± 0.60 and 27.65 ± 0.59 dB; and structural similarity index measures were 0.88 ± 0.00 and 0.70 ± 0.01 respectively. No significant differences were identified for DVH metrics accounting the target coverage. Most OARs did not have significant dose deviation, except left lens with 0.70% higher in D-mean after recalculation (p < 0.001). For criteria of 3 mm/3%, 2 mm/2%, and 1 mm/1%, gamma passing rates for IMRT/VMAT were 99.92%, 99.42%, and 96.47%, while SRS were 99.86%, 99.52%, and 97.57% respectively. Correlation between passing rate and image quality metrics was established in IMRT/VMAT cases, with higher similarity yield better dosimetric agreement between planning and synthetic CT.
conclusionThis study has validated the MRCAT for clinical use in terms of comparable image quality and dosimetric agreement with planning CT. Further case selection and MR-compatible immobilization device would be 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.