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

DVH analysis using a transmission detector and model-based dose verification system as a comprehensive pretreatment QA tool for VMAT plans: Clinical experience and results. | LitMetric

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/PMC6839390PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12743DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dvh analysis
24
verification system
16
transmission detector
12
comprehensive pretreatment
12
model-based verification
12
reconstructed dose
12
detector model-based
8
dose
8
pretreatment tool
8
clinical experience
8

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!