ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Body contour adaptation for weight-loss and bolus for head and neck radiotherapy on Ethos version 2.0 and HyperSight: Synthetic CT versus direct calculation.
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 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.
- 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
- Development of CBCT-Guided Online Adaptive Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2026Review
- Nasopharyngeal cancer adaptive radiotherapy with CBCT-derived synthetic CT: deep learning-based auto-segmentation precision and dose calculation consistency on a C-Arm linac.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- CBCT-based online adaptive radiotherapy of the bladder - geometrical and dosimetrical considerations compared to conventional IGRT.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Body contour adaptation for weight-loss and bolus for head and neck radiotherapy on Ethos version 2.0 and HyperSight: Synthetic CT versus direct calculation.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn radiotherapy, body contour inaccuracies may compromise the delineation of adjacent structures and affect calculated dose. Here, we evaluate the un-editable body contours auto-generated by Ethos versions 1.0 (v1) and 2.0 (v2) treatment planning softwares for two simulated cases: weight-loss and bolus application, particularly important for head and neck radiotherapy patients.
methodsA 3D-printed target structure was secured to the neck of an anthropomorphic phantom and sequentially covered with silicone boluses of uniform thickness, providing cases for bolus application (0.5 and 1 cm) and weight-loss (2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5, and 0 cm). HyperSight CBCT images of the phantom were acquired to simulate the online adaptation process. Baseline body contours were manually produced and compared to those auto-generated in Ethos v1 (synthetic CTs) and Ethos v2 (synthetic CTs and direct calculation on HyperSight CBCTs). Additionally, the target volume D95% dose metric for weight-loss adapted plans generated by the Ethos v2 were analyzed as a function of surface layer thickness.
resultsThe Ethos v1 body contour did not adapt adequately for the weight-loss image set [mean absolute volume deviation from baseline (MAD) = 205 cm
conclusionContours in Ethos v1 rely on reference contours and deformable registration algorithms, whereas Ethos v2 does not. Hence, Ethos v2 is preferred for cases involving weight change. A tight-fitted air gap-free bolus is critical for achieving accurate body contours for Ethos v2 Hypersight CBCTs.
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.