ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Comparative evaluation of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT)-based dose calculation accuracy using cone-beam, megavoltage, and kilovoltage CT modalities.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interfractional variability and reproducibility of accumulated dose in cervical cancer radiotherapy associated with bladder volume.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Validation of Synthetic Megavoltage Computed Tomography (MVCT) for Dose Calculation in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning.Cancers · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT)-based dose calculation accuracy using cone-beam, megavoltage, and kilovoltage CT modalities.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
purposeThis study evaluates the dosimetric accuracy of three image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) imaging modalities, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT), and image-guided kilovoltage computed tomography (IG-kVCT), using modality-specific HU-to-density (HU-D) calibrations. Dose calculations from IGRT images were compared to computed tomography simulation (CT-sim) references in phantoms and validated against measurements from head and neck and prostate patient plans to assess the feasibility of each modality for precise dose calculation in adaptive radiotherapy (ART).
methodsTwo phantoms, the Tomo phantom HE and CIRS Thorax phantom, were used for HU-to-density (HU-D) calibration. IGRT images were acquired using Elekta Synergy XVI (CBCT) and Radixact X9 (MVCT and IG-kVCT), and calibration curves were generated for each modality. Dose distributions calculated from IGRT images were then compared with those from CT-sim in phantom studies. For measurement-based evaluation, 10 patient plans (head and neck and prostate cases) were delivered to a phantom and measured using the ArcCHECK system, and recalculated doses on CT-sim and IGRT images were compared to the measured doses. Gamma analysis was performed to assess dosimetric accuracy.
resultsIG-kVCT showed the closest agreement with CT-sim, achieving gamma passing rates (GPR) of 99.8% ± 0.3% for 3%/3 mm and 98.5% ± 0.7% for 3%/2 mm criteria, with dose differences below 1%. CBCT and MVCT demonstrated slightly lower accuracy, with GPRs of 97.2% ± 1.1% and 96.5% ± 1.3% for 3%/3 mm, respectively, and dose differences up to 2%. Similar trends were observed when compared to measured doses. All IGRT modalities showed clinically acceptable agreement, and no statistically significant differences were found between CT-sim and any IGRT modality.
conclusionAll three IGRT modalities demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy for adaptive dose calculation with modality-specific HU-D calibration curves.
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.