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: Dose volume histogram (DVH)-based analysis is utilized as a pretreatment quality assurance tool to determine clinical relevance from measured dose which is difficult in conventional gamma-based analysis. In this study, we report our clinical experience with an ionization-based transmission detector and model-based verification system, using DVH analysis, as a comprehensive pretreatment QA tool for complex volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.
Methods And Materials: Seventy-three subsequent treatment plans categorized into four clinical sites (Head and Neck, Thorax, Abdomen, and Pelvis) were evaluated. The average dose (D ) and dose received by 1% (D ) of the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risks (OARs) calculated using the treatment planning system (TPS) were compared to a computed (model-based) and reconstructed dose, from the measured fluence, using DVH analysis. The correlation between gamma (3% 3 mm) and DVH-based analysis for targets was evaluated. Furthermore, confidence and action limits for detector and verification systems were established.
Results: Linear regression confirmed an excellent correlation between TPS planned and computed dose using a model-based verification system (r = 1). The average percentage difference between TPS calculated and reconstructed dose for PTVs achieved using DVH analysis for each site is as follows: Head and Neck - 0.57 ± 2.8% (D ) and 2.6 ± 2.7% (D ), Abdomen - 0.19 ± 2.8% and 1.64 ± 2.2%, Thorax - 0.24 ± 2.1% and 3.12 ± 2.8%, Pelvis 0.37 ± 2.4% and 1.16 ± 2.3%, respectively. The average percentage of passed gamma values achieved was above 95% for all cases. However, no correlation was observed between gamma passing rates and DVH difference (%) for PTVs (r = 0.11). The results demonstrate a confidence limit of 5% (D and D ) for PTVs using DVH analysis for both computed and reconstructed dose distribution.
Conclusion: DVH analysis of treatment plan using a model-based verification system and transmission detector provided useful information on clinical relevance for all cases and could be used as a comprehensive pretreatment patient-specific QA tool.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839390 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12743 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!