ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Clinical feasibility of fast adaptive four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography for lung cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Adaptive Four-Dimensional Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (4DCBCT) can reduce scan time and imaging dose in radiotherapy. This is achieved by modulating the projection acquisition rate and gantry rotation speed in response to real-time changes in patient breathing, together with motion-compensated image reconstruction. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical image quality of a fast adaptive 4DCBCT acquisition compared with conventional 4DCBCT in the treatment of lung cancer. Materials and methods: Image datasets from the Adaptive 4DCBCT (ADAPT) clinical trial (ACTRN12618001440213), which included 30 patients treated for lung cancer, were analyzed. Two scan types were assessed: fast adaptive 4DCBCT (200 projections acquired over 20 breathing cycles, approximately 60-80s) and conventional 4DCBCT (1320 projections acquired over approximately 80 breathing cycles, 4 min). Two radiation oncologists and four radiation therapists, blinded to the image acquisition technique, independently rated the clinical utility of each scan using a two-question survey. Tumor visibility was rated on a three-point scale, and overall image quality was rated on a ten-point scale. A paired Results: Fast adaptive 4DCBCT showed a mean tumor visibility score of 2.3 ± 0.8, compared to conventional 4DCBCT (2.4 ± 0.7). For general image quality, fast adaptive 4DCBCT achieved a mean score of 4.1 ± 1.3, compared to conventional 4DCBCT, which had a mean score of 4.3 ± 1.2. There were no statistically significant differences in tumor visibility or image quality scores between fast adaptive 4DCBCT and conventional 4DCBCT scans. Conclusion: Fast adaptive 4DCBCT achieved similar image quality scores to conventional 4DCBCT while requiring only 15% of the imaging dose and 25% of the scan time. This study confirms the clinical feasibility of adaptive scanning protocols for use in radiation therapy for lung cancer.
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.