Evidence Hub

Conditional diffusion models for high-fidelity synthetic CT generation from CBCT in nasopharyngeal carcinoma adaptive radiotherapy: a multi-center study

Xie H, Chen H, Li Q, Chen Z, Sun Y, Tan T

Physics in medicine and biology, 2026

1,128 participants

Abstract

Objective.To develop and validate a conditional diffusion probabilistic model (cDDPM) for generating high-quality synthetic CT (sCT) from cone-beam CT (CBCT) to support accurate online adaptive radiotherapy (ART) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).Approach.Planning CT (pCT) and CBCT images from 1128 NPC patients across two independent centers were retrospectively analyzed. After rigid and deformable registration and preprocessing, 626 cases were used for training, 267 for internal testing, and 235 from another center for external validation. The proposed cDDPM was compared with VAE, GAN, unconditional DDPM, Swin-UNet and latent diffusion model (LDM). Image quality and dosimetric accuracy of sCT were comprehensively evaluated.Main results.In both internal and external validation cohorts, cDDPM-generated sCT significantly outperformed all competing methods across all metrics (MAE, SSIM, MS-SSIM, PSNR, PSNR-hvs, PSNR-hvs-m; all), while showing no significant difference from pCT (all). Mean dose differences for target volumes and critical organs at risk were0.4and1.6, respectively, with no statistical significance. 3D gamma passing rates (3 mm/3) exceeded 98.0in both cohorts.Significance.The proposed cDDPM generates sCT images with image quality approaching that of pCT and introduces negligible dosimetric uncertainty. While prospective clinical validation is still required, the model demonstrates strong potential to facilitate safe and efficient online ART in NPC.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,128 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free