Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40496807›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

Comparing methods to improve cone-beam computed tomography for dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy.

Casper Dueholm Vestergaard, Nadine Vatterodt, Ulrik Vindelev Elstrøm, Kenneth Jensen, Ole Nørrevang, Ludvig Paul Muren, Stine Sofia Korreman, Vicki Trier Taasti

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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

8 authors.

Casper Dueholm VestergaardDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Nadine VatterodtDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ulrik Vindelev ElstrømDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kenneth JensenDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ole NørrevangDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ludvig Paul MurenDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Stine Sofia KorremanDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Vicki Trier TaastiDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Proton therapy requires dose monitoring, often performed based on repeated computed tomography (reCT) scans. However, reCT scans may not accurately reflect the internal anatomy and patient positioning during treatment. In-room cone-beam CT (CBCT) offers a potential alternative, but its low image quality limits proton dose calculation accuracy. This study therefore evaluated different methods for quality-improvement of CBCTs (synthetic CTs; sCTs) for use in adaptive proton therapy of head-and-neck cancer patients. Materials and methods: Thirty-five CBCTs from twenty-four head-and-neck cancer patients were used to assess four sCT generation methods: an intensity-correction method, two deformable image registration methods, and a deep learning-based method. The sCTs were evaluated against same-day reCTs for CT number accuracy, proton range accuracy through single-spot plans, and dose recalculation accuracy of clinical plans via dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters. Results: All four methods generated sCTs with improved image quality while preserving the anatomy relative to the CBCT. The differences in absolute median proton range between sCT methods were small and generally less than the difference between sCT and reCT, which had median differences of 1.0-1.1 mm. Similarly, differences in DVH parameters were generally small between the sCT methods. While outliers were identified for all four methods, these outliers were often consistent for all sCT methods and could be attributed to anatomical and/or positional discrepancies between the CBCT and reCT. Conclusions: All four sCT methods enabled accurate proton dose calculation and preserved the anatomy, making them of value for adaptive proton therapy.

Indexed as

Adaptive proton therapyCone-beam computed tomographyHead-and-neck cancerProton dose calculationSynthetic computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID40496807
PMCPMC12149445

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.