ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Comparison of cone beam computed tomography post-processing methods for online adaptive proton therapy of prostate cancer.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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.
- Imaging, automation and workflow challenges for online adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Although cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) enables online adaptive radiotherapy, its CT number accuracy may be insufficient for online adaptive proton therapy (OAPT). We compared proton dose distributions calculated directly on CBCT with calculations using additional CBCT image-processing methods in prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Retrospective proton plans were created for 10 prostate patients originally treated with 5-fraction online adaptive photon radiotherapy using CBCT. These plans were forward-calculated on each CBCT with four different approaches: (1) the clinical CBCT with a dedicated CT number calibration, (2) CBCT with histogram correction, (3) CT deformed to the CBCT, and (4) deformed CT with an air-cavity correction. Additionally, adaptive treatment using an OAPT workflow was simulated for each fraction and compared among the four CBCT-based methods. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) and related parameters were compared between the four methods for both non-adaptive and online adaptive treatment simulations. Results: Proton dose distributions were comparable across all CBCT-based strategies, with median differences of up to 1% for all DVH metrics compared to a reference method. Larger differences were observed for doses calculated directly on the CBCT for patient geometries deviating from the CBCT-specific calibration. Despite these differences, all four methods indicated the dosimetric benefits of OAPT over non-adaptive treatment. Conclusion: An advanced CBCT system enables proton dose calculations performed directly on the CBCT, demonstrating sufficient accuracy for integration into an OAPT workflow. Additional CBCT-based post-processing techniques are recommended to maximize the dosimetric benefit of plan adaptation in all patient populations.
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.