ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Evaluating synthetic CT from deformable registration in directed adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.
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
Abstract
background and purposelAnatomical changes over the many weeks of radiotherapy for Head and Neck cancer patients can compromise the original treatment plan, potentially increase the risk of side effects and impact outcomes. It is difficult to decide, based on daily imaging alone, which patients will most benefit from adapted treatment plans. This work presents an automated approach to evidence-based assessment of treatment plan robustness to anatomy changes.
methodsDirected Adaptive Radiotherapy (DART) generates a synthetic CT for calculating dose changes in the treatment planning system (TPS). The process first enhances the CBCT, then uses a double fusion to insert the smaller field-of-view CBCT into the larger CT. The double fusion captures both neck tilt and weight loss changes, to accurately capture the position of the head and related critical organs. The deformed CT and contours are sent to TPS for recalculation of the original plan and quantify dose changes. A retrospective study was undertaken using 12 H&N patients who had a replanning CT during their treatment. The quality of the dose distributions calculated on synthetic CT and deformed contours were evaluated, along with the sensitivity and specificity of the synthetic CT as a predictor for adaptation.
resultsThe contour and dose comparison between synthetic CT and clinical replan CT showed good agreement. The average Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was > 80% for all contours, except for the sub-mandibular (> 75%) and excluding cochlea. The average mean distance-to-agreement (MDA) was < 2 mm, and all MDAs were < 3 mm. The average DVH differences were within 1%, and all dose differences were within 3%. The total gamma passing rates were > 95%. Both the sensitivity and specificity of the synthetic CT for predicting the need for adaptation were 92%, based on a tolerance of 2 Gy change for both target coverage and OAR dose constraint limits.
conclusionsBy quantifying the impact of anatomical changes on dose distributions, the DART process helps determine whether a patient would benefit from adaptive replanning. The DART method improves efficiency by reducing unnecessary imaging and replanning when the treatment remains robust against anatomy changes.
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.