ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Evaluating Image Quality of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Using HyperSight® on the Varian TrueBeam.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study evaluated the image quality of the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) system on Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators with HyperSight (TB-HS) and compared it with the standard TrueBeam system (TB-S). Particular emphasis was placed on changes relevant to offline adaptive radiotherapy (ART).
methodsImage quality was assessed using a Catphan 504 phantom on two TB-HS and two TB-S machines. Quantitative parameters included HU accuracy, uniformity, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), low-contrast visibility (LCV), and noise power spectrum (NPS). Measurements were performed at 100 kV and 125 kV using default clinical CBCT protocols and reconstruction algorithms. Planning CT images acquired with matching clinical protocols served as reference values. Statistical comparisons of image quality parameters between techniques and agreement with internationally recommended tolerance criteria were performed using the pairwise linear mixed models and McNemar's tests, respectively. Additionally, eight radiographers conducted a blinded subjective image quality evaluation of CBCT images from 15 patients before and after the HyperSight installation
resultsCatphan analysis showed that TB-HS improved HU accuracy for high-density inserts, while uniformity and CNR showed minor, mostly non-significant differences. Spatial resolution, noise characteristics, and LCV remained unchanged. Both techniques generally met the tolerance criteria, though TB-HS did so more consistently. Subjective image quality evaluation showed no overall preference.
conclusionThe HyperSight upgrade provided minor image quality enhancements but demonstrated no clear clinical advantage. Nevertheless, findings support the potential of HyperSight for offline ART. However, further investigations in patient-based applications are needed to confirm its clinical value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42829389What 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.