Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Radiation Oncology

A comparative dosimetric evaluation of two image-guided calibration strategies for multi-isocenter total body irradiation: integrated fan-beam CT–based alignment versus sequential cone-beam CT–guided localization

Provisionally accepted
Bo  GaoBo Gao1Yaling  HongYaling Hong2Junjin  YanJunjin Yan1Xiwei  ChenXiwei Chen3Suhua  TanSuhua Tan2Yutao  ZhuYutao Zhu2Yan  LiuYan Liu2Zhaojie  YaoZhaojie Yao1Lizhen  WuLizhen Wu1Haiyan  ChenHaiyan Chen2Zhanquan  LeiZhanquan Lei1*
  • 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Children's Hospital(Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children's Medical Center), Fuzhou, China
  • 2Shanghai Children's Medical Center Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  • 3Hunan Provincial Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, changsha, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is key to making sure the radiation dose is accurate when treating kids with multi-isocenter total body irradiation (TBI). Ensuring dose accuracy in pediatric multi-isocenter TBI. Shanghai Children’s Medical Center employed low-dose fan-beam CT (FBCT) for integrated multi-isocenter calibration, whereas Fujian Children’s Hospital used cone-beam CT (CBCT) for sequential isocenter alignment. Objective: To evaluate FBCT versus CBCT guidance effects on target coverage and organ doses across two regimens: 12 Gy in 6 fractions and 3 Gy in 1 fraction. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 34 pediatric TBI patients (21 FBCT, 13 CBCT) treated with identical field setups (three upper-body isocenters; two/three lower-body isocenters; junction at upper femur third). Pre-treatment FBCT/CBCT images were registered to planning CTs; doses recalculated using original plans. Metrics: PTV V90%, V100%, V110%, mean doses; homogeneity index (HI); conformity index (CI); mean lung and kidney doses. Results: In the 12 Gy group, FBCT guidance improved PTV coverage: V90% increased from 96.11% to 97.14%, V100% from 90.40% to 92.81%, and V110% decreased from 20.73% to 16.67% (all P < 0.01). HI decreased from 0.25 to 0.16, CI increased from 0.77 to 0.89, and mean PTV dose rose from 12.33 to 12.57 Gy (all P < 0.01). Mean lung dose fell from 8.61 to 8.47 Gy, and mean kidney dose from 8.24 to 8.10 Gy (both P < 0.01). In the 3 Gy group, FBCT guidance also improved PTV coverage: V90% increased from 96.32% to 97.82%, V100% from 91.44% to 93.97%, and V110% decreased from 17.43% to 13.72% (all P < 0.01). HI decreased from 0.21 to 0.13, CI increased from 0.77 to 0.87, and mean PTV dose rose from 3.08 to 3.12 Gy (all P < 0.01). Mean lung dose decreased from 2.34 to 2.25 Gy, and mean kidney dose from 2.09 to 2.06 Gy (both P < 0.01). Conclusion: FBCT guidance gave better target dose conformity and homogeneity, and lower lung doses, than CBCT guidance—both for the 12 Gy myeloablative regimen and the 3 Gy low-dose regimen. These results suggest that FBCT guidance is a better option for image-guided total body irradiation in children.

Keywords: Children, Cone-beam CT, Dosimetry, Fan-beam CT, Image guidance, Total body irradiation

Received: 04 Dec 2025; Accepted: 09 Feb 2026.

Copyright: © 2026 Gao, Hong, Yan, Chen, Tan, Zhu, Liu, Yao, Wu, Chen and Lei. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Zhanquan Lei

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.