Evidence Hub

HyperSight CBCT image quality and metal artifact reduction for adaptive head and neck radiotherapy: Results from a prospective clinical trial

A. Yashayaeva, R. Macdonald, K. Zhan, J. DeGiobbi, N. McMaster, D. McAloney, Lucy Ward, Cheryl Anderson et al.

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2025

24 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Accurate Hounsfield units (HU) are critical for dose calculation and anatomical visualization, but are often affected by dental artifacts in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients. The HyperSight cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) platform provides improved image quality over previous CBCT platforms and offers metal artifact reduction (iCBCT MAR) reconstruction. Purpose This study evaluates the quality of HyperSight CBCT images compared to current clinical standards: TrueBeam CBCT for image guidance and fan‐beam CT (FBCT) from a CT simulator for treatment planning, using images captured during H&N cancer treatment. Methods Images for 30 H&N cancer patients were acquired on a HyperSight CBCT, conventional TrueBeam and FBCT, with 24 patients exhibiting metal dental artifacts. The HyperSight images were reconstructed using iCBCT MAR and iterative (iCBCT Acuros) algorithms. The four image sets were rigidly registered and compared using the artifact index (AI) measured in the oral cavity and the percentile range (PR) measured in the oral cavity, brain, brainstem and eyes to assess image non‐uniformity. The HU accuracy was calculated relative to FBCT (baseline) for soft tissues (oral cavity, brainstem, submandibular and parotid glands), and bone (mandible). The contrast relative to baseline was evaluated between the oral cavity and nearby structures. Image‐based metrics were computed relative to FBCT including structural similarity index measure (SSIM),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, 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: 24 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