ArticleJournal of medical physics
Multi-institutional Comparison of Novel O-ring Linac Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Fan Beam Computed Tomography.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This work presents a multi-institutional image comparison between novel O-ring linac cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and fan-beam computed tomography simulator (FBCT), among five institutions. Materials and Methods: A phantom was sent to five institutions with Ethos and Halcyon units equipped with HyperSight CBCT (HS-CBCT). HyperSight used a 125 kVp/176 mAs protocol and an iterative-CBCT reconstruction algorithm with scatter correction. FBCT imaging protocols used 125 kVp and exposure from 176 to 379 mAs. Results: Linear fitting of relative electron density versus Hounsfield unit (RED-vs-HU) curves was determined for RED ≤ 1 and RED ≥ 1. The contrast was evaluated with regard to solid water. Noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were evaluated with and without exposure normalization. The RED-vs-HU curve for RED ≤ 1 of FBCT shows a 4% greater slope than HS-CBCT (P = 0.024), while for the RED ≥ 1 case, the FBCT slope is 15% larger compared to (P = 0.00004). HS-CBCT has a larger contrast as RED differs from 1, although at RED > 1, the difference is significant, up to 14%. However, noise is larger for HS-CBCT, especially for RED > 1, up to 10 times. Even with exposure correction, noise is more significant for HS-CBCT, which leads to a CNR ten times smaller than FBCT (RED = 1.78). Conclusion: This multi-institutional analysis of HS-CBCT showed reduced slopes of the RED-vs-HU curves compared to FBCT, which results in a greater sensitivity of the HS-CBCT to RED changes. HS-CBCT shows better contrast performance, although the broader beam leads to noise up to 10 times larger noise, even with the scatter correction. The CNR of the FBCT is up to one order of magnitude greater than that for HS-CBCT.
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.