ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Evaluation and implementation of an independent Kilovoltage X-ray-based imaging platform for carbon ion radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. 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.
- Evaluation and implementation of an independent Kilovoltage X-ray-based imaging platform for carbon ion radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImage-guided particle therapy (IGPT) has significantly advanced in recent years, particularly in the context of proton therapy. However, imaging solutions for carbon-ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) remain limited. PURPOSE: This study introduces sliding-gantry cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dual-panel digital radiography (DR) systems, both mechanically independent of carbon-ion delivery nozzles. We aim to evaluate the image quality metrics and verify the positioning accuracy of the imaging systems.
methodsImage quality was evaluated in terms of spatial resolution, low contrast resolution, image uniformity, and effective imaging area using a multi-purpose imaging phantom, Catphan 700 phantom, and ImageJ software. The influences of planning computed tomography (CT) slice thicknesses (1-5 mm), radiation quality settings (90-130 kV), and registration algorithms (bony, grayscale, and fiducial marker registrations) on positioning accuracy were assessed using anthropomorphic head-neck and thoracoabdominal phantom images. The clinical feasibility of both systems was validated in 22 enrolled patients.
resultsThe CBCT exhibited a lower in-plane spatial resolution (2.50 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm)) than DR (2.80 lp/mm). Spatial resolution of the CBCT system was measured at 0.90 lp/mm using the CTP 714 module of the Catphan 700 phantom. Both systems achieved a low contrast resolution of 2.30%. DR provided superior image uniformity (1.12%-1.40%) compared with CBCT (2.20%). The effective imaging areas were comparable between the CBCT and DR systems (99.30%-99.50%). Positioning accuracy varied with planning CT slice thicknesses, radiation quality settings, and registration algorithms, showing mean translation displacements ranging from 0.01 to 0.48 mm. CBCT achieved inter-fraction translational positioning errors within 2 mm in 42.3% (22/52) of fractions and rotational positioning errors within 2° in 80.8% (42/52) of fractions, and DR achieved 33.8% (24/71) and 73.2% (52/71), respectively.
conclusionThe developed CBCT and DR systems achieved superior image quality and sub-0.5 mm positioning accuracy. These findings support the clinical feasibility of integrating CBCT and DR imaging systems into the C-ion RT workflow.
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.