Impact of cone‐beam computed tomography artifacts on dose calculation accuracy for lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To implement image‐guided adaptive radiotherapy (IGART), many studies investigated dose calculations on cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT). A high HU accuracy is crucial for a high dose calculation accuracy and many imaging sites showed satisfactory results. It has been shown that the dose calculation accuracy for lung cancer lags behind. Purpose To examine why the dose calculation accuracy for lung is insufficient, the relative effects of the field‐of‐view (FOV), breathing motion, and scatter on dose calculation accuracy were studied. Methods A framework was built to simulate CBCT scans for lung cancer patients by forward projecting repeat CT (rCT) scans for two scan geometries: small (SFOV) and medium FOV (MFOV). Breathing motion was modeled by applying a 4D deformation vector field to the mid‐position rCT. Scatter was modeled by Monte‐Carlo simulations with/without an anti‐scatter grid (ASG). Simulated projections were reconstructed using filtered back‐projection with/without scatter correction. In case of the SFOV, the CBCT images were patched with the planning CT scan in axial direction. The treatment plan was recalculated on the rCT and simulated CBCT. The mean Hounsfield unit (HU) difference (ΔHU mean ), the structural similarity index measure (SSIM), and γ metrics were calculated for the CBCT datasets of various imaging settings. Results The differences in HU, SSIM and dose calculation accuracy for CBCTs with and without breathing motion were negligible (mean ΔHU mean = 6.4 vs. 13.7, mean SSIM = 0.941 vs. 0.957, mean γ (ref = MFOV) = 0.75). The SFOV resulted in a lower HU (mean ΔHU mean = −9.2 vs. 13.7) and SSIM (mean SSIM = 0.912 vs. 0.957), and therefore in dose differences compared to the MFOV (mean γ = 1.22). Scatter led to considerable discrepancies in all metrics. Adding only the ASG improved the results more than only applying a scatter correction algorithm. Combining ASG and scatter correction algorithm resulted in an even higher dose calculation accuracy. Conclusions Scatter and FOV are the main contributors to dose inaccuracies and motion has only a minor effect on dose calculation accuracy. Therefore, utilizing an appropriate scatter correction and FOV is important to achieve sufficient dose calculation accuracy to facilitate IGART for lung.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".