A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Analysis of peripheral doses for base of tongue treatment by linear accelerator and helical TomoTherapy IMRT. | LitMetric

The purpose of this study was to compare the peripheral doses to various organs from a typical head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivered by linear accelerator (linac) and helical TomoTherapy. Multiple human CT data sets were used to segment critical structures and organs at risk, fused and adjusted to an anthropomorphic phantom. Eighteen contours were designated for thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) placement. Following the RTOG IMRT Protocol 0522, treatment of the primary tumor and involved nodes (PTV70) and subclinical disease sites (PTV56) was planned utilizing IMRT to 70Gy and 56 Gy. Clinically acceptable treatment plans were produced for linac and TomoTherapy treatments. TLDs were placed and each treatment plan was delivered to the anthropomorphic phantom four times. Within 2.5 cm (one helical TomoTherapy field width) superior and inferior to the field edges, normal tissue doses were on average 45% lower using linear accelerator. Beyond 2.5 cm, the helical TomoTherapy normal tissue dose was an average of 52% lower. The majority of points proved to be statistically different using the Student's t-test with p > 0.05. Using one method of calculation, probability of a secondary malignancy was 5.88% for the linear accelerator and 4.08% for helical TomoTherapy. Helical TomoTherapy delivers more dose than a linac immediately above and below the treatment field, contributing to the higher peripheral doses adjacent to the field. At distances beyond one field width (where leakage is dominant), helical TomoTherapy doses are lower than linear accelerator doses.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5720425PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3136DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

helical tomotherapy
28
linear accelerator
20
peripheral doses
12
accelerator helical
8
tomotherapy
8
anthropomorphic phantom
8
field width
8
normal tissue
8
lower linear
8
helical
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!