ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Impact of bulk density assignment of bone on MRI-based abdominal region radiotherapy planning for MR-linac workflow.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic CT imaging for pelvic and abdominal MR-only radiotherapy: Clinical validation on a 1.5T MR-Linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Impact of bulk density assignment of bone on MRI-based abdominal region radiotherapy planning for MR-linac workflow.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of bone relative electron density (rED) assignment on radiotherapy planning for the abdominal region.
methodsTwenty patients who received abdominal radiotherapy using MR-Linac and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) simulation were analyzed. The reference plan (RP) was established using both CT and MR image sets (RP_CT and RP_MRI). The RP_MRI utilized the bulk density method. The recalculated RPs derived from various rED assignment methods were evaluated for comparison on both datasets. The RPs were recalculated by excluding rED assignment for bones (scenario A). Based on the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements report, lung contours were assigned rED of 0.258, and body contours were assigned 1.000 (scenario B) and 1.019 (scenario C). Dose volume histogram (DVH) differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs were evaluated. D95, D99, and D1cc were evaluated for target volumes, including gross tumor volume, internal target volume, and planning target volume. DVH parameters, including D1cc for each abdominal organ at risk (OAR) and the mean dose to the liver and kidneys, were evaluated. Three-dimensional local gamma analysis was conducted to assess dose distribution differences between the three recalculated scenarios and RPs.
resultsIn all scenarios of the CT- and MRI-based validation, the average gamma pass rates (2%/2 mm) were higher than 95%. In the CT-based validation, all target DVHs across the 20 patients showed that none exceeded 2% error in scenario A, whereas 2% and 14% exceeded the threshold in scenarios B and C, respectively. For OARs in CT and MRI-based validation, absolute maximum dose differences when compared with those of the RP were 0.19 Gy and 0.22 Gy, respectively, in scenario A.
conclusionExcluding bone rED considerations in abdominal treatment planning may not yield notable clinical differences.
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.