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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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

Simple DVH parameter addition as compared to deformable registration for bladder dose accumulation in cervix cancer brachytherapy. | LitMetric

Background And Purpose: Variations in organ position, shape, and volume cause uncertainties in dose assessment for brachytherapy (BT) in cervix cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate uncertainties associated with bladder dose accumulation based on DVH parameter addition (previously called "the worst case assumption") in fractionated BT.

Materials And Methods: Forty-seven patients treated for locally advanced cervical cancer were included. All patients received EBRT combined with two individually planned 3D image-guided adaptive BT fractions. D(2cm(3)) and D(0.1cm(3)) were estimated by DVH parameter addition and compared to dose accumulations based on an in-house developed biomechanical deformable image registration (DIR) algorithm.

Results: DIR-based DVH analysis was possible in 42/47 patients. DVH parameter addition resulted in mean dose deviations relative to DIR of 0.4±0.3 Gy(αβ3) (1.5±1.8%) and 1.9±1.6 Gy(αβ3) (5.2±4.2%) for D(2cm(3)) and D(0.1cm(3)), respectively. Dose deviations greater than 5% occurred in 2% and 38% of the patients for D(2cm(3)) and D(0.1cm(3)), respectively. Visual inspection of the dose distributions showed that hotspots were located in the same region of the bladder during both BT fractions for the majority of patients.

Conclusion: DVH parameter addition provides a good estimate for D(2cm(3)), whereas D(0.1cm(3)) is less robust to this approximation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.01.013DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dvh parameter
20
parameter addition
20
d2cm3 d01cm3
16
addition compared
8
bladder dose
8
dose accumulation
8
cervix cancer
8
dose deviations
8
dose
7
parameter
5

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!