ArticleMedical physics2026
A comparison of relative stopping power derived by fast kV-switching dual-energy CT, single-energy CT, and proton CT in phantom and tissue.
Article in Medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of relative stopping power (RSP) is a critical aspect for safe treatment planning in proton therapy. Dual-energy CT (DECT) has the ability to estimate RSP more accurately than conventional single-energy CT (SECT) due to its improved material separation. RSP accuracy is commonly determined in homogeneous phantom material as it can be more challenging to determine in heterogeneous biological tissues. Proton CT (pCT) is a modality that directly determines RSP and can be used as a comparative benchmark for evaluating the RSP accuracy of DECT and SECT derived values across homogeneous and heterogeneous material. PURPOSE: In this study, DECT was compared to SECT in both homogeneous phantom inserts of known RSP and heterogeneous tissue samples of unknown RSP using pCT as a quantitative reference. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of DECT to improve RSP estimation over SECT in unknown RSP of heterogeneous tissues.
methodsA variety of homogeneous phantom inserts were scanned using pCT, DECT, and SECT. The estimated RSP from each imaging modality was compared to the RSP of each insert directly measured using a multilayer ionization chamber (MLIC). Scans of heterogeneous tissue samples were also acquired using pCT, DECT, and SECT. The images from each modality were registered and a variety of tissue regions of interest were contoured. The percent difference of DECT and SECT derived RSP values compared to pCT was calculated across both homogeneous phantom and heterogeneous tissue regions and compared.
resultsThe mean absolute percentage error for the inserts compared to the known RSP was 1.6% ± 1.6% in pCT, 1.1% ± 1.6% in DECT, and 4.6% ± 6.2% in SECT. For inserts with relative electron density greater than 0.93 and excluding true water and aluminum, DECT average percent difference compared to pCT was -0.5% ± 0.02% while in SECT it was -1.5% ± 0.07%. In biological tissue, excluding enamel, the average percent difference for DECT compared to pCT was -0.3% ± 1.1%, while for SECT the percent difference compared to pCT was 0.6% ± 3.0%.
conclusionsFast kV-switching DECT obtained smaller RSP deviations from pCT compared to SECT in homogeneous tissue-equivalent phantom inserts. In heterogeneous tissue samples, DECT maintained improved RSP accuracy compared to SECT.
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.