Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24334328›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2014

Direct dose mapping versus energy/mass transfer mapping for 4D dose accumulation: fundamental differences and dosimetric consequences.

Haisen S Li, Hualiang Zhong, Jinkoo Kim, Carri Glide-Hurst, Misbah Gulam, Teamour S Nurushev, Indrin J Chetty

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Real-Time Dose-Guided Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Applicability and usage of dose mapping/accumulation in radiotherapy.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Haisen S LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Hualiang Zhong
Jinkoo Kim
Carri Glide-Hurst
Misbah Gulam
Teamour S Nurushev
Indrin J Chetty

Funding

To quantify deformable image registration errors in IGRTR01CA140341 · NCI · HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM · PI ZHONG, HUALIANG · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140341
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The direct dose mapping (DDM) and energy/mass transfer (EMT) mapping are two essential algorithms for accumulating the dose from different anatomic phases to the reference phase when there is organ motion or tumor/tissue deformation during the delivery of radiation therapy. DDM is based on interpolation of the dose values from one dose grid to another and thus lacks rigor in defining the dose when there are multiple dose values mapped to one dose voxel in the reference phase due to tissue/tumor deformation. On the other hand, EMT counts the total energy and mass transferred to each voxel in the reference phase and calculates the dose by dividing the energy by mass. Therefore it is based on fundamentally sound physics principles. In this study, we implemented the two algorithms and integrated them within the Eclipse treatment planning system. We then compared the clinical dosimetric difference between the two algorithms for ten lung cancer patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery treatment, by accumulating the delivered dose to the end-of-exhale (EE) phase. Specifically, the respiratory period was divided into ten phases and the dose to each phase was calculated and mapped to the EE phase and then accumulated. The displacement vector field generated by Demons-based registration of the source and reference images was used to transfer the dose and energy. The DDM and EMT algorithms produced noticeably different cumulative dose in the regions with sharp mass density variations and/or high dose gradients. For the planning target volume (PTV) and internal target volume (ITV) minimum dose, the difference was up to 11% and 4% respectively. This suggests that DDM might not be adequate for obtaining an accurate dose distribution of the cumulative plan, instead, EMT should be considered.

Indexed as

Four-Dimensional Computed TomographyRadiation DosageAlgorithmsAnisotropyHumansLung NeoplasmsRadiometryRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID24334328
PMCPMC3980482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.