Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40213030›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

Dose calculation accuracy of clinical radiotherapy plans using next generation cone beam computed tomography imaging technology.

Peter R Martin, Amanda Cherpak, R Lee MacDonald, Abigail Yashayaeva, David McAloney, Natasha McMaster, Kenny Zhan, Slawa Cwajna, Nikhilesh Patil, Hannah M Dahn and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Peter R MartinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
Amanda CherpakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
R Lee MacDonaldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
Abigail YashayaevaDepartment of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
David McAloneyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
Natasha McMasterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
Kenny ZhanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
Slawa CwajnaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
Nikhilesh PatilDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
Hannah M DahnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.
James L RobarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, QE2 Cancer Centre, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Next generation cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) technology has shown improved Hounsfield unit accuracy over standard CBCT, and comparable to that of fan beam CT simulators (CTsim), potentially allowing direct dose calculation on CBCT. In this study, we evaluated the dose calculation accuracy of clinical treatment plans calculated using this technology, compared with standard CBCT. Materials and methods: Thirty subjects with thoracic or upper abdominal cancer were imaged on CTsim, standard CBCT and next generation CBCT, and treated using breath hold techniques. Both CBCT image sets were rigidly registered to CTsim, and clinical treatment plans were forward calculated on all images. 3D Gamma analysis was used to evaluate CBCT dose distributions relative to CTsim, and DVH analysis compared PTV and OAR dose metrics. Results: The median (±IQR) 3 %/3 mm gamma pass rate was 96.7 ± 3.1 % for next generation CBCT and 93.3 ± 14.0 % for standard CBCT. Next generation CBCT gamma scores were statistically significantly higher than standard CBCT for all gamma criteria. Median DVH metrics were within ± 2.3 % and ± 2.7 % of the corresponding values from CTsim, for next generation and standard CBCT respectively. Standard CBCT showed an underestimation of ipsilateral lung dose for breast subjects, while next generation CBCT did not. Conclusions: Next generation CBCT allows for good average DVH agreement with CTsim, and improved dose calculation accuracy over standard CBCT across 3D dose distributions. While further clinical investigations are warranted, this technology may allow for the use of CBCT in direct-dose calculation in adaptive radiotherapy.

Indexed as

Adaptive radiotherapyCone beam computed tomographyImage-guided radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID40213030
PMCPMC11985121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.