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
Aim: To investigate the viability of placing the treatment isocenter at the patient midline for breast cancer radiotherapy in order to avoid the risk of collisions during image-guided setup and treatment delivery.
Background: The use of kilovoltage orthogonal setup images has spread in last years in breast radiotherapy. There is a potential risk of an imaging system-patient collision when the isocenter is laterally placed.
Materials And Methods: Twenty IMRT plans designed by placing the isocenter within the breast volume ("plan_ref"), were retrospectively replanned by shifting the isocenter at the patient's midline ("plan_off-breast"). An integrated simultaneous boost (SIB) technique was used. Multiple metrics for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared for both approaches using a paired test.
Results: Comparing plan_ref vs. plan_off-breast, no significant differences in PTV coverage (V95%) were found (96.5% vs. 96.2%; = 0.361 to PTVbreast; 97.0% vs. 97.0%; = 0.977 to PTVtumor_bed). With regard to OARs, no substantial differences were observed in any analyzed metric: V5Gy (30.3% vs. 31.4%; = 0.486), V20Gy (10.3% vs. 10.3%; = 0.903) and mean dose (7.1 Gy vs. 7.1 Gy; = 0.924) to the ipsilateral lung; V5Gy (11.2% vs. 10.0%; = 0.459), V30Gy (0.7% vs. 0.6%; = 0.251) and mean dose (2.3 Gy vs. 2.2 Gy; = 0.400) to the heart; and average dose to the contralateral breast (0.4 Gy vs. 0.5 Gy; = 0.107).
Conclusions: The off-breast isocenter solution resulted in dosimetrically comparable plans as the reference technique, avoiding the collision risk during the treatment session.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036509 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2016.06.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!