ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016
Effect of the normalized prescription isodose line on the magnitude of Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam target dose differences for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Ray Tracing and Monte Carlo Calculation Algorithms for Spine Lesions Treated With CyberKnife.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Selection Strategy of Jaw Tracking in VMAT Planning for Lung SBRT.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Verification of an optimizer algorithm by the beam delivery evaluation of intensity-modulated arc therapy plans.Radiology and oncology · 2021Article
- Dosimetric comparison of different algorithms in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plan for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).OncoTargets and therapy · 2019Article
- Verification of Acuros XB dose algorithm using 3D printed low-density phantoms for clinical photon beams.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
- Does intensity modulation increase target dose calculation errors of conventional algorithms for lung SBRT?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
- Optimizing the prescription isodose level in stereotactic volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of lung lesions as a potential for dose de-escalation.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Density overwrites of internal tumor volumes in intensity modulated proton therapy plans for mobile lung tumors.Physics in medicine and biology · 2018Article
- A comprehensive dosimetric study on switching from a Type-B to a Type-C dose algorithm for modern lung SBRT.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Article
- Target dose conversion modeling from pencil beam (PB) to Monte Carlo (MC) for lung SBRT.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) cases, the pencil beam (PB) dose calculation algorithm is known to overestimate target dose as compared to the more accurate Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. We investigated whether changing the normalized prescription isodose line affected the magnitude of MC vs. PB target dose differences. Forty-eight patient plans and twenty virtual-tumor phantom plans were studied. For patient plans, four alternative plans prescribed to 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% isodose lines were each created for 12 patients who previously received lung SBRT treatments. Using 6 MV dynamic conformal arcs, the plans were individually optimized to achieve similar dose coverage and conformity for all plans of the same patient, albeit at the different prescription levels. These plans, having used a PB algorithm, were all recalculated with MC to compare the target dose differences. The relative MC vs. PB target dose variations were investigated by comparing PTV D95, Dmean, and D5 loss at the four prescription levels. The MC-to-PB ratio of the plan heterogeneity index (HI) was also evaluated and compared among different isodose levels. To definitively demonstrate the cause of the isodose line dependence, a simulated phantom study was conducted using simple, spherical virtual tumors planned with uniform block margins. The tumor size and beam energy were also altered in the phantom study to investigate the interplay between these confounding factors and the isodose line effect. The magnitude of the target dose overestimation by PB was greater for higher prescription isodose levels. The MC vs. PB reduction in the target dose coverage indices, D95 and V100 of PTV, were found to monotonically increase with increasing isodose lines from 60% to 90%, resulting in more pronounced target dose coverage deficiency at higher isodose prescription levels. No isodose level-dependent trend was observed for the dose errors in the target mean or high dose indices, Dmean or D5. The phantom study demonstrated that the observed isodose level dependence was caused by different beam margins used for the different isodose levels: a higher prescription line required a larger beam margin, leading to more low-density lung tissues in the field and, therefore, larger dose errors at the target periphery (when calculated with PB). The phantom study also found that the observed isodose level dependence was greater for smaller targets and for higher beam energies. We hereby characterized the effect of normalized prescription isodose line on magnitude of PTV dose coverage as calculated by MC vs. PB. When comparing reported MC dose deficiency values for different patients, the selection of prescription isodose line should be considered in addition to other factors known to affect differences in calculated doses between various algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.