ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Phantom benchmarking for quality assurance of synthetic computed tomography in cranial magnetic resonance-only 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeSynthetic computed tomography (sCT) from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enables computed tomography (CT)-free cranial radiotherapy planning, yet no consensus exists on which head phantoms are usable for sCT quality assurance (QA). This study benchmarked head phantoms to identify the most promising candidates for cranial sCT QA and the design characteristics associated with favorable sCT-to-conventional CT agreement. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen head phantoms underwent clinical MRI (1.5 T) and CT imaging. Two vendor-provided sCT algorithms (2D slice-based, 3D volume-based) were applied to identical input. sCT and CT were compared using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95), CT number mean error (ME) within both a self-mask (sCT-derived) and a common-mask (CT-derived), and percentage dose deviations (%ΔD
resultsPhantoms without internal skull-equivalent structures showed bone DSC ≤ 0.001 and common-mask bone ME≤ -1100 HU. Phantoms with skull-equivalent anatomy achieved bone DSC of 0.24-0.71, bone HD95 of 4.2-24.4 mm, and self-mask bone ME between -95 and +470 HU across both algorithms. Common-mask bone ME in skull-containing phantoms ranged from -198 to -1115 HU across both algorithms. Soft-tissue ME stayed within ±120 HU across skull-containing phantoms for both masks. Average absolute |%ΔD
conclusionsInternal skull-equivalent anatomy is a necessary but not sufficient design characteristic; low-susceptibility and MR-compatible materials proved essential. Joint evaluation of geometric, CT number, and dose agreement was required to rank phantom performance. No phantom met all criteria simultaneously.
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.