↓ Skip to main content

Dosimetric evaluation of synthetic CT relative to bulk density assignment-based magnetic resonance-only approaches for prostate radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dosimetric evaluation of synthetic CT relative to bulk density assignment-based magnetic resonance-only approaches for prostate radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0549-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua Kim, Kim Garbarino, Lonni Schultz, Kenneth Levin, Benjamin Movsas, M. Salim Siddiqui, Indrin J. Chetty, Carri Glide-Hurst

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been incorporated as an adjunct to CT to take advantage of its excellent soft tissue contrast for contouring. MR-only treatment planning approaches have been developed to avoid errors introduced during the MR-CT registration process. The purpose of this study is to evaluate calculated dose distributions after incorporating a novel synthetic CT (synCT) derived from magnetic resonance simulation images into prostate cancer treatment planning and to compare dose distributions calculated using three previously published MR-only treatment planning methodologies. An IRB-approved retrospective study evaluated 15 prostate cancer patients that underwent IMRT (n = 11) or arc therapy (n = 4) to a total dose of 70.2-79.2 Gy. Original treatment plans were derived from CT simulation images (CT-SIM). T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and balanced turbo field echo images were acquired on a 1.0 T high field open MR simulator with patients immobilized in treatment position. Four MR-derived images were studied: bulk density assignment (10 HU) to water (MRW), bulk density assignments to water and bone with pelvic bone values derived either from literature (491 HU, MRW+B491) or from CT-SIM population average bone values (300 HU, MRW+B300), and synCTs. Plans were recalculated using fixed monitor units, plan dosimetry was evaluated, and local dose differences were characterized using gamma analysis (1 %/1 mm dose difference/distance to agreement). While synCT provided closest agreement to CT-SIM for D95, D99, and mean dose (<0.7 Gy (1 %)) compared to MRW, MRW+B491, and MRW+B300, pairwise comparisons showed differences were not significant (p < 0.05). Significant improvements were observed for synCT in the bladder, but not for rectum or penile bulb. SynCT gamma analysis pass rates (97.2 %) evaluated at 1 %/1 mm exceeded those from MRW (94.7 %), MRW+B300 (94.0 %), or MRW+B491 (90.4 %). One subject's synCT gamma (1 %/1 mm) results (89.9 %) were lower than MRW (98.7 %) and MRW+B300 (96.7 %) due to increased rectal gas during MR-simulation that did not affect bulk density assignment-based calculations but was reflected in higher rectal doses for synCT. SynCT values provided closest dosimetric and gamma analysis agreement to CT-SIM compared to bulk density assignment-based CT surrogates. SynCTs may provide additional clinical value in treatment sites with greater air-to-soft tissue ratio.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 21%
Physics and Astronomy 10 13%
Engineering 8 10%
Computer Science 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,610,256
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#182
of 2,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,700
of 386,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#3
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.