ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Evaluating a CBCT Correction Algorithm for Adaptive Radiotherapy.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionTo increase efficiency of adaptive radiotherapy (ART), we tested a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) correction algorithm to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing daily CBCTs for treatment planning.MethodsA lung phantom was scanned with a CT and CBCT on two different linacs. The CBCTs were processed through a correction algorithm in the treatment planning system (TPS). The algorithm reduces artifacts and adjusts image intensity to more closely match the planning CT, to generate corrected CBCTs. Voxels outside the CBCT field of view (FOV) are replaced with voxels from the planning CT. A treatment plan was first generated on the CT, then recalculated on the corrected CBCTs. The same workflow was followed for seven previously adapted head and neck and seven sarcoma patients. Each patient's adaptive plan was recalculated on the corrected CBCTs. Dose differences were analyzed for these plans using a 3%/2 mm gamma analysis.ResultsBoth Ethos and TrueBeam CBCT plans on the phantom had high matching dose per voxel according to gamma analysis. After corrections of some registration errors, all 14 plans achieved gamma passing rate above 95% (3%/2 mm).ConclusionsThe CBCT correction algorithm demonstrates potential to reduce the need for re-simulation and enable faster offline adaptive planning without sacrificing dose calculation accuracy.
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.