ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Quantitative assessment of CBCT image quality metrics and their translation to clinical Art workflow performance in breast cancer patients.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOnline adaptive radiotherapy (ART) relies on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging for daily treatment adaptation, but CBCT's physical limitations can compromise contour delineation and dose calculation accuracy. The relationship between image quality metrics and clinical ART workflow accuracy remains unclear. PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical impact of CBCT image quality on ART workflow accuracy in breast cancer patients by comparing contour agreement and dose calculation accuracy between Halcyon and TrueBeam systems, establishing how quantitative image quality metrics affect contour agreement and dose calculation accuracy within the ART workflow.
methodsForty breast cancer patients treated with VMAT were equally divided between Halcyon (n = 20) and TrueBeam (n = 20). Phantom-based image quality assessment evaluated HU uniformity, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and modulation transfer function (MTF) using Catphan 504. Planning CT and first-day CBCT images were aligned using deformable registration. AI auto-segmentation generated contours for six structures, evaluated using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and other geometric metrics. VMAT plans were recalculated on CBCT images using system-specific HU-to-electron density calibration curves for dose-volume histogram, 3D gamma analysis, and dose difference analysis.
resultsHalcyon demonstrated 1.65-fold higher CNR (22.21 vs. 13.42) and 1.78-fold better HU uniformity (9 vs. 16 HU) compared to TrueBeam, despite comparable spatial resolution (MTF50: 0.36 lp/mm). Contour agreement analysis showed Halcyon achieved higher accuracy (treated breast DSC: 0.92 ± 0.06 vs. 0.87 ± 0.21, p < 0.001) with 3.5-fold lower inter-patient variability. Dosimetric analysis revealed paradoxical patterns: TrueBeam maintained better PTV coverage (D
conclusionQuantitative CBCT image quality metrics, particularly CNR and HU uniformity, directly affect both contour agreement and dosimetric concordance in breast ART workflows. These findings provide quantitative evidence linking CBCT image quality metrics to both contour agreement and dose calculation accuracy within the ART workflow.
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.