ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Multi-institutional validation of hypersight CBCT-based dose calculation on O-ring linacs.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workflow and dosimetric results for direct-to-unit single-fraction adaptive lung SBRT delivered on the ONE-STOP prospective pilot clinical trial.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Image quality robustness of HyperSight-enabled versus conventional iterative cone-beam CT across patient size and imaging geometry.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Quantitative stability of CT numbers in novel cone-beam CT: An intra-institution cross-scanner and longitudinal analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Task-based image quality and dosimetric validation of HyperSight CBCT for adaptive radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Multi-institutional validation of hypersight CBCT-based dose calculation on O-ring linacs.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems are limited by suboptimal image quality, inaccurate Hounsfield unit (HU) calibration, and reduced reliability for dose calculation. HyperSight CBCT on the Halcyon platform offers improved HU accuracy, expanded field-of-view (FOV), and enhanced image quality. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the dosimetric accuracy of treatment planning using HyperSight CBCT through phantom-based dose verification.
methodsThis study included three institutions equipped with the HyperSight imaging system on the Halcyon platform, with all procedures performed after acceptance testing and calibration. Each institution generated HU-to-density calibration curves using computed tomography (CT) scanners and standardized phantoms, and corresponding CBCT for planning (CBCTp) scans were also acquired. Additional CBCTp scans were acquired using a consistent phantom model (062 M) across the three institutions. Reference treatment plans were created on CT images and transferred to CBCTp and CBCT datasets for dose recalculation using identical parameters. Dosimetric assessment included gamma analysis and comparisons of DVH-based dosimetric metrics for relevant regions of interest (ROIs). End-to-end testing with an anthropomorphic phantom was performed using ion chamber measurements and film dosimetry at brain, bone, and thorax locations.
resultsHU-to-density curves showed consistent behavior across institutions, with larger variability only at higher densities. CBCTp calibrations agreed well with vendor references. DVH-based dosimetric metrics showed differences generally within 1% for both CBCTp and CBCT when compared with CT. Across institutions, gamma analysis of both CBCTp and CBCT yielded high passing rates (≥ 98.5% at 3%/2 mm). End-to-end testing with film dosimetry showed that CBCT-based plans agreed with measured doses within ± 4%, while CT-based plans were within ± 3%. Ion chamber measurements showed all dose differences within ± 2.3%, with both CBCTp and CBCT within ± 1.0% of CT.
conclusionsHyperSight CBCT provides accurate dose calculations when properly calibrated. Phantom-based validation demonstrated sub-2% deviations and strong agreement with CT, supporting its clinical use in adaptive radiotherapy.
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.