ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2012
Comparison between Acuros XB and Brainlab Monte Carlo algorithms for photon dose calculation.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of dose calculation algorithms for virtual heterogeneous phantoms and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the head and neck.Radiological physics and technology · 2016Article
- Hounsfield units variations: impact on CT-density based conversion tables and their effects on dose distribution.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Acuros® XB dose calculation algorithm by Varian and the Monte Carlo algorithm XVMC by Brainlab were compared with each other and with the well-established AAA algorithm, which is also from Varian.
methodsFirst, square fields to two different artificial phantoms were applied: (1) a "slab phantom" with a 3 cm water layer, followed by a 2 cm bone layer, a 7 cm lung layer, and another 18 cm water layer and (2) a "lung phantom" with water surrounding an eccentric lung block. For the slab phantom, depth-dose curves along central beam axis were compared. The lung phantom was used to compare profiles at depths of 6 and 14 cm. As clinical cases, the CTs of three different patients were used. The original AAA plans with all three algorithms using open fields were recalculated.
resultsThere were only minor differences between Acuros and XVMC in all artificial phantom depth doses and profiles; however, this was different for AAA, which had deviations of up to 13% in depth dose and a few percent for profiles in the lung phantom. These deviations did not translate into the clinical cases, where the dose-volume histograms of all algorithms were close to each other for open fields.
conclusionOnly within artificial phantoms with clearly separated layers of simulated tissue does AAA show differences at layer boundaries compared to XVMC or Acuros. In real patient CTs, these differences in the dose-volume histogram of the planning target volume were not observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22526227What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.