ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Dosimetric evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging based synthetic computed tomography for head and neck photon and proton therapy.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How bone mis-segmentation affects MRI-based sCT dosimetry in head and neck radiotherapy: A CT-referenced study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Dosimetric evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging based synthetic computed tomography for head and neck photon and 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate target delineation is essential for precise delivery of proton therapy. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only radiotherapy workflow may improve delineations, and thus improve proton therapy, but requires reliable synthetic computed tomography (sCT) for accurate dose calculations. PURPOSE: The aim was to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of commercial software-based sCT for proton dose calculation for head and neck cancer (HNC), and benchmark it against the accuracy of photon dose calculation on the same sCT.
methodsMRI and planning CT (pCT) were acquired for 20 HNC patients before receiving photon therapy. A commercial software created MRI-based sCTs, which were co-registered to pCTs. For each patient, photon and proton plans based on pCT, prescribing 68 Gy to the target, were created in RayStation and recalculated on sCT. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics and gamma index (2%/2 mm criteria) were analyzed, comparing pCT- and sCT-calculated dose. Local and global gamma index were calculated for low and high-dose thresholds. A gamma pass rate (GPR) was calculated for each plan and gamma index type.
resultsFor photon and proton plans, the median difference in DVH metrics between pCT- and sCT-calculated dose was < 0.4 Gy with an interquartile range < ± 0.7 Gy for all structures and metrics, except for mean dose to oesophagus (median = -0.3 Gy, range: -2.0 Gy to 0.7 Gy), oral cavity (median = 1.8 Gy, range: 0.6 Gy to 3.0 Gy), and larynx (median = -0.1 Gy, range: -1.5 Gy to 0.6 Gy) for proton plans. The median GPR for photon plans was > 97.7%, while for proton plans it was > 93.3% except for body GPR with low-dose threshold.
conclusionWhile sCT seems feasible for photon therapy, poorer agreement between pCT- and sCT-calculated proton dose was found. Patient positioning differences between CT and MRI may partly explain the discrepancies between pCT- and sCT-calculated proton dose.
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.