Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Ergebnis 8 von 26

Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte
Titel
The sensitivity of patient-specific IMRT QA methods in detecting systematic errors: field-by-field versus single-gantry-angle composite
Ist Teil von
  • Journal of physics. Conference series, 2019-06, Vol.1248 (1), p.12063
Ort / Verlag
Bristol: IOP Publishing
Erscheinungsjahr
2019
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
EZB Electronic Journals Library
Beschreibungen/Notizen
  • This study evaluated the effect of small systematic errors, such as those from a multileaf collimator (MLC), on the quality of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plan delivery. Two IMRT quality assurance (QA) verification techniques, field-by-field (FBF) and singe-gantry-angle composite (SGAC), were performed to evaluate both original and modified plans using a 2D ion chamber array detector. The dose distributions measured by the array detector for both FBF and SGAC were compared with the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). FBF was found to be more sensitive than SGAC at detecting small systematic errors such as the opening and closing of the MLC's segments, which were evaluated with respect to a gamma-index of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm. The systematic errors involved in closing the segments of the anterior field by 2 mm and 3 mm showed a significant difference compared with the original field (unmodified): 83.1 ± 1.7% and 42.9 ± 1.9% gamma-index passing rates, respectively, for FBF. For SGAC, the magnitude of closing the MLC by 2 mm remained unnoticed and resulted in a 95.1 ± 2.61% gamma-index passing rate. Opening the MLC by 2 mm gave a false negative, but more than 5% of the rectum received 75 Gy, which exceeded the tolerance radiation dose recommended by the Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC).
Sprache
Englisch
Identifikatoren
ISSN: 1742-6588
eISSN: 1742-6596
DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1248/1/012063
Titel-ID: cdi_proquest_journals_2566269735

Weiterführende Literatur

Empfehlungen zum selben Thema automatisch vorgeschlagen von bX