ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Does intensity modulation increase target dose calculation errors of conventional algorithms for lung SBRT?
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. 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.
- Correlation of dosimetric factors with the development of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis in stereotactic body radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of IGRT-Induced Imaging Doses and Secondary Cancer Risk for SBRT Early Lung Cancer Patients In Silico Study.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConventional dose algorithms (Type A and Type B) for lung SBRT can display considerable target dose errors compared to Type-C algorithms. Intensity-modulated techniques (IMRT/VMAT) are increasingly being utilized for lung SBRT. Therefore, our study aimed to assess whether intensity modulation increased target dose calculation errors by conventional algorithms over conformal techniques.
methodsTwenty lung SBRT patients were parallely planned with both IMRT and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using a Type-A algorithm, and another 20 patients were parallely planned with IMRT, VMAT, and DCA using a Type-B algorithm. All 100 plans were recalculated with Type-C algorithms using identical beam and monitor unit settings, with the Type-A/Type-B algorithm dose errors defined using Type-C recalculation as the ground truth. Target dose errors for PTV and GTV were calculated for a variety of dosimetric end points. Using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05 for statistical significance), target dose errors were compared between corresponding IMRT/VMAT and DCA plans for the two conventional algorithms. The levels of intensity modulation were also evaluated using the ratios of MUs in the IMRT/VMAT plans to those in the corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression was used to study the correlation between intensity modulation and relative dose error magnitudes.
resultsOverall, larger errors were found for the Type-A algorithm than for the Type-B algorithm. However, the IMRT/VMAT plans were not found to have statistically larger dose errors from their corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression did not identify a significant correlation between the intensity modulation level and the relative dose error.
conclusionIntensity modulation did not appear to increase target dose calculation errors for lung SBRT plans calculated with conventional 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.