Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42088144›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical physics, clinical engineering and radiation oncology2017

Accuracy comparison of 4D computed tomography (4DCT) and 4D cone beam computed tomography (4DCBCT).

Tzu-Cheng Lee, Stephen R Bowen, Sara St James, George A Sandison, Paul E Kinahan, Matthew J Nyflot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical physics, clinical engineering and radiation oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tzu-Cheng LeeDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Stephen R BowenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Sara St JamesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
George A SandisonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Paul E KinahanDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Matthew J NyflotDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

Funding

Enabling Ultra Low Dose PET/CT ImagingR01CA160253 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KINAHAN, PAUL E. · 2011 to 2015
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability of respiratory-correlated fan beam CT (4DCT) and respiratory-correlated cone beam CT (4DCBCT) to accurately estimate tumor volume is critical to accurate dosimetry and treatment verification for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and other motion-managed therapies. However, it is known that 4DCT and 4DCBCT differ in aspects of image acquisition and reconstruction that may lead to discrepancies between the two modalities. To evaluate quantitative differences between 4DCT and 4DCBCT imaging under respiratory motion, we performed a phantom study in the ground truth setting. A programmable respiratory motion phantom was used to simulate the 1D S-I position of a known-size lesion. Ten sinusoidal and twenty patient-specific breathing waveforms were applied to drive lesion motion during the 4DCT and 4DCBCT acquisitions. The difference in lesion volume acquired between the two imaging modalities was as high as 34.4% and 18.4% for sinusoidal and patient-specific breathing motions, respectively. When compared to the true volume, 4DCT measurement often underestimated the lesion size whereas 4DCBCT overestimated the lesion volume in most of the cases. 4DCBCT gave more accurate recovery of the volume than 4DCT for most settings tested in this study. These findings may be helpful for improving the definition of internal target and planning target volume margins, and extracting quantitative information from on-board treatment verification imaging.

Indexed as

4dcbct4dctrespiratory motion phantomverification imaging

Identifiers

PMID42088144
PMCPMC13138725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.