ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Metal artifact reduction in spectral computed tomography for intracavity brachytherapy in cervical cancer patients: a prospective study.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of combining virtual monochromatic images (VMI) with metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms in reducing metal artifacts in cervical cancer patients undergoing intracavitary brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty cervical cancer patients scheduled for intracavitary brachytherapy underwent spectral computed tomography (CT) images. VMI + MAR/no-MAR were reconstructed at energies ranging from 40 to 140 keV. CT attenuation and image noise (standard deviation) were measured to calculate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for the most prominent artifacts, and the artifact index (AI) for the cervix, bladder, and rectum. Objective metrics were compared between the VMI + MAR and VMI + no-MAR groups. Subjective image quality was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale, focusing on artifact reduction, soft tissue contrast, and contouring preference. Geometric distortion was assessed by measuring the long axis, short axis, and long-to-short axis ratio (L/S) of the titanium applicator. Contouring consistency was quantified using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and 95th percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95) between two radiation oncologists.
resultsVMI + MAR significantly reduced the AI for the cervix (relative 34.74%-88.51% reduction) and rectum (relative 11.31%-81.35% reduction) compared to VMI + no-MAR across all energies (all p < 0.05). SNR increased from 0.70–1.00 to 1.75–1.97, and CNR improved significantly from 90 keV onwards (p < 0.05). 140 keV + MAR achieved the highest SNR and CNR with the lowest AI. Subjective assessment further confirmed that 140 keV + MAR offered the best balance between artifact reduction and soft tissue contrast, with significantly higher scores for artifact reduction and contouring preference (p < 0.001). Distortion analysis showed that with increasing VMI energy, long (40-140 keV: from 8.10 to 6.17 mm) and short axes (40-140 keV: from 6.93 to 5.55 mm) decreased, and L/S approached 1 (p < 0.001). Contouring consistency analysis further demonstrated that 140 keV + MAR achieved the highest DSC and lowest HD95 among all energy-MAR combinations, indicating superior reproducibility of target and organ-at-risk delineations.
conclusionsFor the investigated cases and imaging procedures, high-energy VMI combined with MAR, particularly 140 keV + MAR, provided the most effective balance of artifact reduction, geometric accuracy, and clinical contouring suitability.
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.