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
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate the accuracy of the dose calculation of On-Board Imager (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with deformable image registration (DIR), using the multilevel-threshold (MLT) algorithm and histogram matching (HM) algorithm in pelvic radiation therapy.
Methods And Materials: One pelvis phantom and 10 patients with prostate cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy were studied. To minimize the effect of organ deformation and different Hounsfield unit values between planning CT (PCT) and CBCT, we modified CBCT (mCBCT) with DIR by using the MLT (mCBCT(MLT)) and HM (mCBCT(HM)) algorithms. To evaluate the accuracy of the dose calculation, we compared dose differences in dosimetric parameters (mean dose [D(mean)], minimum dose [D(min)], and maximum dose [D(max)]) for planning target volume, rectum, and bladder between PCT (reference) and CBCTs or mCBCTs. Furthermore, we investigated the effect of organ deformation compared with DIR and rigid registration (RR). We determined whether dose differences between PCT and mCBCTs were significantly lower than in CBCT by using Student t test.
Results: For patients, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters of CBCT with DIR were smaller than those of CBCT with RR (eg, rectum; 0.54% for DIR vs 1.24% for RR). For the mCBCTs with DIR, the average dose differences in all dosimetric parameters were less than 1.0%.
Conclusions: We evaluated the accuracy of the dose calculation in CBCT, mCBCT(MLT), and mCBCT(HM) with DIR for 10 patients. The results showed that dose differences in D(mean), D(min), and D(max) in mCBCTs were within 1%, which were significantly better than those in CBCT, especially for the rectum (P<.05). Our results indicate that the mCBCT(MLT) and mCBCT(HM) can be useful for improving the dose calculation for adaptive radiation therapy.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.007 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!