ArticleMedical physics2026
Simulation-free spine palliative radiotherapy enabled by AI-adapted diagnostic CT.
Article in Medical physics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiotherapy planning traditionally requires a dedicated simulation CT (sCT), which can introduce delays in initiating treatment. This is particularly impactful in spinal palliative care, where timely treatment is often important for symptom control and prevention of neurological deterioration. Although diagnostic CT (dCT) is frequently available earlier in the workflow, it can lead to geometric and dosimetric inaccuracies when used directly for treatment planning due to discrepancies in patient positioning, vertebral alignment, and table curvature. PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate an AI-based method that transforms dCT into a simulation-equivalent planning CT (AI-pCT), enabling a clinically feasible simulation-free workflow for spinal palliative radiotherapy.
methodsTwo neural networks were trained to correct spine position and body contour using paired dCT-sCT images from 50 patients (42 train/validation, 8 internal tests) in a safety net hospital and externally evaluated on 7 additional academic medical center (AMC) patients. After rigid bone-based alignment to sCT, dosimetric accuracy was assessed by comparing DVH endpoints (Dmean, Dmax, D95, D99, V100, V107) and DVH Root-Mean-Square (RMS) error for plans recalculated on dCT versus AI-pCT versus sCT. Four radiation oncologists scored image suitability. Significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsIn the safety net cohort, AI-pCT substantially reduced geometric and dosimetric error relative to dCT (e.g., Dmean error 2.0%→0.57%; RMS DVH error 6.4%→2.2%, all p < 0.05), improved physician plan-quality ratings from "Acceptable" to "Good-Perfect," and increased plan-level clinical goal achievement from 37.5% to 100%. In the AMC cohort, where baseline dCT was already closely aligned to sCT, AI-pCT produced smaller but still statistically significant gains.
conclusionAI-pCT achieves sCT-level geometric and dosimetric fidelity without requiring a separate simulation scan, enabling a simulation-free planning workflow for spinal palliative RT. This approach has the potential to reduce treatment delays and improve access, particularly in resource-constrained environments.
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.