ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Quantitative stability of CT numbers in novel cone-beam CT: An intra-institution cross-scanner and longitudinal analysis.
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
backgroundNovel cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become available on standard C-arm linacs, making it widely applicable in photon-based radiotherapy. PURPOSE: To evaluate CT number stability of novel CBCT systems installed on seven C-arm linacs within a single institution, across CBCT systems and over time, and to assess the CBCT-based dose calculation accuracy in head-and-neck, lung, and pelvic cancer patients.
methodsA Gammex Advanced Electron Density phantom (Sun Nuclear) was scanned at installation of eleven CBCT imaging panels at seven TrueBeam C-arm linacs (Varian Medical Systems, A Siemens Healthineers Company), and after three and six months. Three CBCT protocols were evaluated, a head protocol (tube voltage of 100 kVp, iterative reconstruction, denoted iCBCT), a thorax protocol (tube voltage of 125 kVp; filtered back projection with Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) algorithm), and a pelvis protocol (tube voltage of 125 kVp; iCBCT). Fifteen tissue-equivalent phantom inserts were scanned individually, placed centrally in the phantom. The mean CT number was extracted, and CT number stability was assessed across imaging panels and timepoints. CT number stability was compared to a previous CBCT detector model. Moreover, routine measurements using four inserts were performed until 18 months after installation. Conversion curves for mass density estimation were generated, following a consensus guide. The spread of the curves due to CT number variation across imaging panels was assessed. Treatment plans created on planning CT (pCT) scans of 10 head-and-neck, 22 lung, and 15 pelvic cancer patients were recalculated on CBCT scans, selected to match the anatomy seen on the pCT. Dose-volume parameters for targets and organs-at-risk were compared between pCT and CBCT.
resultsThe CT numbers were consistent across the imaging panels and over time for iCBCT reconstruction, but to a lesser degree for FDK reconstruction. The CT number variation increased with the density of the phantom inserts. Still, for the high-density bone insert the range/interquartile range of the CT numbers across imaging panels were 51/29 HU (head protocol), 140/41 HU (thorax protocol), and 27/16 HU (pelvis protocol). For the longitudinal measurements, the median differences were 4 HU, -9 HU, and -8 HU after three months and -8 HU, -32 HU, and -26 HU after six months, for the head, thorax, and pelvis protocol, respectively. For the routine measurements, no clear time dependence was seen for the CT number differences. It was found that a single conversion curve per CBCT protocol could be used for all imaging panels. For iCBCT, median dose differences between pCT and CBCT were within 0.5% for head-and-neck and pelvis and 1.5% for lung, while FDK lung was within 2.5%. The largest deviations with iCBCT were -1.3% for head-and-neck, -1.1% for pelvis, and -3.8% for thorax, but -18.0% for thorax FDK.
conclusionsThe CT number stability was sufficient to allow for a single conversion curve per CBCT protocol to be applied across all CBCT imaging panels. A high dose calculation accuracy was found for 36 patients with iCBCT scans, while larger deviations were seen for eleven thorax FDK scans.
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.