ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Dual-energy CT for proton therapy: Impact of advanced slice-wise patient-thickness estimation methods for improved stopping-power prediction.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe direct prediction of stopping-power ratio (SPR) from dual-energy CT (DECT) has become gold-standard in proton therapy. Remaining uncertainties due to patient-size-specific CT number variations are mitigated by calibration factors based on patient size defined as water-equivalent thickness. PURPOSE: To improve SPR prediction, two slice-wise thickness estimation methods (TEM-B1 and -B2) were compared with the previously used one (TEM-A).
methodsTEM-A is using the maximum attenuation projections in x- and y-direction, while TEM-B1 and -B2 incorporate all voxels of the object to better describe non-elliptical geometries. Simplified geometries were used to investigate TEM dependencies on several parameters (e.g., object shape, rotation). TEMs were then applied to DECT scans of cylindrical acrylic phantoms with varying diameters and to patient data. Clinical treatment plans were recalculated on generated TEM-specific SPR datasets, and the impact of different estimated thicknesses on SPR was assessed.
resultsIn contrast to TEM-A, TEM-B1 and -B2 demonstrated robustness to object shape and rotation. Couch attenuation affected all evaluated TEMs with TEM-A being most affected. For patient scans, TEM-B1 and B2 agreed closely but differed from TEM-A, especially in high diameters. In obese patients, this leads to relative proton range deviations up to 0.3% when comparing TEM-B1 and TEM-A. In the sensitivity analysis, TEM-B1 and -B2 maintained SPR uncertainties below ±3% even for cortical bone.
conclusionsTEM-B1 and -B2 reduced deviations in thickness estimation and increased robustness to object shape, overcoming the limitations of TEM-A and improving SPR prediction 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.