ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
A depth dose study between AAA and AXB algorithm against Monte Carlo simulation using AIP CT of a 4D dataset from a moving phantom.
Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2021Article
- Custom-designed Small Animal focal iRradiation Jig (SARJ): design, manufacture and dosimetric evaluation.BJR open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo identifying depth dose differences between the two versions of the algorithms using AIP CT of a 4D dataset.
backgroundMotion due to respiration may challenge dose prediction of dose calculation algorithms during treatment planning. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe two versions of depth dose calculation algorithms, namely, Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) version 10.0 (AAAv10.0), AAA version 13.6 (AAAv13.6) and Acuros XB dose calculation (AXB) algorithm version 10.0 (AXBv10.0), AXB version 13.6 (AXBv13.6), were compared against a full MC simulated 6X photon beam using QUASAR respiratory motion phantom with a moving chest wall. To simulate the moving chest wall, a 4 cm thick wax mould was attached to the lung insert of the phantom. Depth doses along the central axis were compared in the anterior and lateral beam direction for field sizes 2 × 2 cm
resultsFor the lateral beam direction, the moving chest wall highlighted differences of up to 105% for AAAv10.0 and 40% for AXBv10.0 from MC calculations in the surface and buildup doses. AAAv13.6 and AXBv13.6 agrees with MC predictions to within 10% at similar depth. For anterior beam doses, dose differences predicted for both versions of AAA and AXB algorithm were within 7% and results were consistent with static heterogeneous studies.
conclusionsThe presence of the moving chest wall was capable of identifying depth dose differences between the two versions of the algorithms. These differences could not be identified in the static chest wall as shown in the anterior beam depth dose calculations.
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.