ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Routine kV-CBCT quality assurance in IGRT: Workflow-based comparison of QUART/MaximQA vs Catphan/ARTISCAN.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study aimed to compare image-quality metrics measured by two kV-CBCT QA systems-the QUART phantom with MaximQA and the Catphan phantom with ARTISCAN-using standard clinical kV-CBCT imaging protocols in a Varian TrueBeam IGRT setting, in line with AAPM TG-142/TG-179 QA recommendations.
methodsQA scans of the QUART and Catphan phantoms were acquired for image gently, head, thorax, pelvis and pelvis large imaging protocols. Key image quality metrics (noise, signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], uniformity, geometric distortion, Hounsfield unit [HU] constancy, contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) were measured using MaximQA and ARTISCAN software. Descriptive statistics and paired t-tests (α = 0.01) evaluated differences between systems; TG-142/TG-179 tolerances provided context.
resultsThe QUART/MaximQA system consistently produced significantly lower measured image noise and higher measured SNR than Catphan/ARTISCAN across most protocols (e.g., Pelvis Large: SNR 495.1 ± 40.7 vs 283.6 ± 31.5, p < 0.01). Geometric accuracy was excellent in both systems (measured distances ∼99.6%-100% of nominal, no significant differences). QUART phantom HU values were closer to nominal for inserts; however, the Catphan Solid Water insert was interpreted in terms of material-related HU behavior and stability rather than poorer HU accuracy (e.g., water-equivalent insert: QUART ≈ 0 HU vs +60 for Catphan/Solid Water, p < 0.01). Uniformity differences were small (< 5 HU) and often not significant. CNR and low-contrast detectability were reported as complementary QA indicators rather than directly equivalent metrics. Overall, both systems yielded image quality metrics within TG-142/TG-179 baselines.
conclusionsBoth QUART/MaximQA and Catphan/ARTISCAN provide consistent kV-CBCT QA metrics, but due to differences in phantom design, ROI definition, analysis software and setup conditions, their absolute values should not be considered directly interchangeable. The choice of phantom/software may influence absolute QA values. We recommend using institution-specific baselines per TG-142/TG-179 and cite emerging literature on automated kV-CBCT QA.
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.