ArticleJournal of radiation research2025
Inter-institutional variability in CT-to-mass-density conversion tables for helical tomotherapy: a national survey in Japan.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 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.
- Impact of CT calibration curves on radiotherapy planning using diagnostic CT scans and a planning CT supporting DirectDensity reconstruction.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates current practices and challenges associated with computed tomography number-to-mass density (CT-MD) conversion tables in helical tomotherapy across Japan and explores directions for standardization and quality improvement amid the increasing adoption of adaptive radiotherapy (ART). A nationwide web-based survey was conducted across 34 institutions utilizing the Radixact system. Data were collected on CT acquisition protocols, calibration phantoms, density plugs, reconstruction algorithms, table registration timing and quality assurance (QA) frequency. Registered CT-MD tables were categorized by CT modality: Simulation CT (SimCT), ClearRT and CTrue. ClearRT tables were analyzed by phantom setup (full vs half), and CTrue tables by reconstruction method [filtered back projection (FPB) vs iterative reconstruction (IR)]. Inter-institutional variations in CT numbers and the number of data points were assessed. SimCT tables exhibited the widest variation in the number of data points (median = 10) and high-density CT numbers. ClearRT tables (median = 8) showed variations of up to 300 Hounsfield units (HU) in cortical bone; the half-phantom setup reduced inter-institutional variability. CTrue tables (median = 8) demonstrated high consistency, with negligible differences between IR and FPB. All plug CT numbers of CTrue remained within the tolerance defined by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 148. However, CT numbers for air plugs varied by ~±30 HU, indicating inconsistent handling of air reference values. Additionally, 43% of institutions did not perform routine QA. Standardizing phantom geometry, air CT number handling and QA protocols-particularly using half-phantom calibration-may improve CT-MD table consistency and dose accuracy in ART.
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.