ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Comparison of two dual-energy CT-based methods for proton stopping-power ratio estimation in brain cancer patients with metal implants.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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.
- Practical considerations for handling implants in proton therapy.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAccurate stopping-power ratio (SPR) estimation is crucial for proton therapy planning. In brain cancer patients with metal clips, SPR accuracy may be affected by high-density materials and imaging artefacts. Dual-energy CT (DECT)-based methods have been shown to improve SPR accuracy. This study evaluated the consistency between two SPR estimation methods in brain cancer patients: (1) a Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) for DECT-generated virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) and (2) the DirectSPR algorithm (Siemens Healthineers). Patient/material and methods: DECT scans were acquired for 11 brain cancer patients. Two SPR maps were generated: one using a 90 keV VMI with a HLUT and the other via the DirectSPR algorithm. The VMI HLUT was adjusted in high-density regions to align with the SPR of titanium. Clinically applied proton therapy plans were recalculated on both SPR maps and dose distributions were compared using dose-volume histograms. Furthermore, a voxel-wise SPR comparison and a separate titanium implant analysis were performed.
resultsDose differences between the SPR methods were minimal for organs-at-risk. DirectSPR showed strong SPR agreement with the VMI HLUT approach for CT numbers up to 1500 HU (SPR~1.9). Beyond this, especially in regions with titanium implants, DirectSPR yielded higher SPR values than the VMI HLUT, suggesting an adjustment may also be needed for DirectSPR.
interpretationDirectSPR was consistent with the VMI HLUT up to 1500 HU but deviated at higher CT numbers. These deviations had limited impact on dose metrics, but they should be considered when choosing beam orientations.
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.