ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Evaluation of registration accuracy using short-arc cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiotherapy in breast 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImage-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) enables highly accurate imaging registration; however, increased radiation exposure remains a concern. Recently, short-arc CBCT (SA-CBCT), which reduces projection data and reconstructs images, has become available. Although previous studies have shown that image quality deteriorates when projection data are reduced, no study has directly evaluated the clinical usefulness of SA-CBCT or its effect on registration accuracy. PURPOSE: We verified the registration accuracy of SA-CBCT in breast tangential irradiation using an anthropomorphic phantom and clinical data, and examined its clinical feasibility compared with the commonly used 200° scan.
methodsAn anthropomorphic phantom was placed on the treatment bed, and CT and CBCT images acquired during treatment planning were aligned. Bed movement was measured for both conventional CBCT and SA-CBCT images. The difference between the two measurements was quantified as N, defined as the norm of the vector difference between CBCT and SA-CBCT registration shifts, to evaluate registration accuracy. The acquisition angle was varied to assess the effects of central and total angles. In the clinical study, registration data from 30 consecutive patients who underwent whole-breast irradiation were analyzed. Data were reconstructed by changing the acquisition angle from 200° to 120°, and N was calculated as in the phantom experiment.
resultsIn the phantom experiment, N was within 0.15 mm (3-axis) and 0.55 mm (6-axis) when the acquisition angle was reduced to 120°. In clinical data, the average N was 0.64 mm in 3-axis registration (84.7% within 1 mm) and 0.85 mm in 6-axis registration (71.3% within 1 mm). Even with a 120° acquisition angle, the body contour and chest wall edges were sufficiently preserved.
conclusionsSA-CBCT maintained adequate registration accuracy in breast tangential irradiation. These findings suggest its clinical applicability with appropriate acquisition angle settings.
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.