ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Clinical implementation of patient-specific quality assurance for synthetic computed tomography.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safety in MR-enhanced daily adaptive SBRT Radiotherapy using a conventional C-arm linear accelerator: An FMEA approach.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 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
Background and purpose: In a magnetic resonance (MR) only planning workflow, MR image is the sole dataset acquired. In order to calculate the dose deposition, a synthetic CT (sCT) is generated to substitute the planning computed tomography (CT). This study aimed to establish acceptance criteria for the clinical implementation of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for sCT. Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 60. 30 patients underwent a CT scan in treatment position and an MR in diagnostic position. 30 patients had both CT and MR images acquired in treatment position. For the latter group, a sCT for dose calculation was generated and compared against three PSQA methods: recalculation on (A) water override of the body, (B) tissue classes with bulk density overrides and (C) planning CT. The relative dose differences (ΔD [%]) between the sCT and the PSQA methos were evaluated. Results: ΔD for PTV Dmean for method (A) were within 3% for pelvis and 4% for brain cohorts, with standard deviations below 1%. Methods (B) and (C) remained within 2% and 1%, respectively, with deviations up to 1%. Conclusion: The present study proposes a robust PSQA method for MR-only planning. Method (A) is a valuable tool for identifying potential large outliers for Dmean deviations (> 5 %) and it is proposed as the routine PSQA. Method (B) can be used for pelvis cases to improve detection to the 2 % level if method (A) fails. If both (A) and (B) fail, method (C) can be used as a fall-back.
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.