Trial reportJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
HyperSight CBCT image quality and metal artifact reduction for adaptive head and neck radiotherapy: Results from a prospective clinical trial.
Trial report 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Failure modes and effects analysis for clinical implementation of online adaptive radiotherapy: A systematic review.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Pooled it
- HyperSight CBCT image quality and metal artifact reduction for adaptive head and neck radiotherapy: Results from a prospective clinical trial.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Trial
- Dynamic modulated arc therapy (DMAT): A time-aware, modulation-steered optimization framework for next-generation radiotherapy delivery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Development of CBCT-Guided Online Adaptive Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2026Review
- Initial experience of clinical implementation of an Online Simulation-free CBCT-based Adaptive Radiotherapy (OSCAR) workflow for palliative and urgent treatment indications.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- HyperSightRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- A clinical evaluation of HyperSight CBCT enhanced offline adaptive breast radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate Hounsfield units (HU) are critical for dose calculation and anatomical visualization, but are often affected by dental artifacts in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients. The HyperSight cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) platform provides improved image quality over previous CBCT platforms and offers metal artifact reduction (iCBCT MAR) reconstruction. PURPOSE: This study evaluates the quality of HyperSight CBCT images compared to current clinical standards: TrueBeam CBCT for image guidance and fan-beam CT (FBCT) from a CT simulator for treatment planning, using images captured during H&N cancer treatment.
methodsImages for 30 H&N cancer patients were acquired on a HyperSight CBCT, conventional TrueBeam and FBCT, with 24 patients exhibiting metal dental artifacts. The HyperSight images were reconstructed using iCBCT MAR and iterative (iCBCT Acuros) algorithms. The four image sets were rigidly registered and compared using the artifact index (AI) measured in the oral cavity and the percentile range (PR) measured in the oral cavity, brain, brainstem and eyes to assess image non-uniformity. The HU accuracy was calculated relative to FBCT (baseline) for soft tissues (oral cavity, brainstem, submandibular and parotid glands), and bone (mandible). The contrast relative to baseline was evaluated between the oral cavity and nearby structures. Image-based metrics were computed relative to FBCT including structural similarity index measure (SSIM), mean-square error (MSE) and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR).
resultsThe HyperSight iCBCT MAR images showed a significant reduction in AI values compared to the other images (p < 0.0004), but higher PR values indicating decreased HU uniformity compared to HyperSight iCBCT Acuros and FBCT (p < 0.0002). The soft-tissue HU and contrast values were significantly closer to baseline in both HyperSight images compared to TrueBeam (HU: p < 0.001, contrast: p < 0.001). For soft-tissue the HU mean absolute deviation (MAD) from baseline was 16 ± 10 HU for HyperSight iCBCT Acuros, 15 ± 10 HU for HyperSight iCBCT MAR, and 35 ± 22 HU for TrueBeam. For bone, the HU MAD from baseline was 153 ± 233 HU, 185 ± 268 HU, and 214 ± 212 HU, respectively. The HyperSight iCBCT Acuros algorithm achieved significantly superior SSIM, MSE, and PSNR metrics compared to TrueBeam and HyperSight iCBCT MAR in regions with large amounts of bone and air.
conclusionsHyperSight iCBCT MAR significantly reduced artifacts compared to HyperSight iCBCT Acuros, TrueBeam and FBCT, making it particularly beneficial for patients with metal implants. Both HyperSight reconstructions demonstrated improved soft-tissue HU accuracy and contrast compared to TrueBeam, however the iCBCT Acuros algorithm may be preferred when metal-induced artifacts are not a concern. These results support the suitability of HyperSight images in adaptive treatment workflows requiring accurate image quality, even with severe metal artifacts.
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.