ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2019
Comparison of gamma index based on dosimetric error and clinically relevant dose-volume index based on three-dimensional dose prediction in breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Dose Calculation Algorithms and Radiobiological Parameters on Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Complications in Left Breast Radiation Therapy.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasurement-guided dose reconstruction has lately attracted significant attention because it can predict the delivered patient dose distribution. Although the treatment planning system (TPS) uses sophisticated algorithm to calculate the dose distribution, the calculation accuracy depends on the particular TPS used. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the gamma passing rate (GPR) and the clinically relevant dose-volume index based on the predicted 3D patient dose distribution derived from two TPSs (XiO, RayStation).
methodsTwenty-one breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans were inversely optimized using XiO. With the same plans, both TPSs calculated the planned dose distribution. We conducted per-beam measurements on the coronal plane using a 2D array detector and analyzed the difference in 2D GPRs between the measured and planned doses by commercial software. Using in-house software, we calculated the predicted 3D patient dose distribution and derived the predicted 3D GPR, the predicted per-organ 3D GPR, and the predicted clinically relevant dose-volume indices [dose-volume histogram metrics and the value of the tumor-control probability/normal tissue complication probability of the planning target volume and organs at risk]. The results derived from XiO were compared with those from RayStation.
resultsWhile the mean 2D GPRs derived from both TPSs were 98.1% (XiO) and 100% (RayStation), the mean predicted 3D GPRs of ipsilateral lung (73.3% [XiO] and 85.9% [RayStation]; p < 0.001) had no correlation with 2D GPRs under the 3% global/3 mm criterion. Besides, this significant difference in terms of referenced TPS between XiO and RayStation could be explained by the fact that the error of predicted V
conclusionsGPR is useful as a patient quality assurance to detect dosimetric errors; however, it does not necessarily contain detailed information on errors. Using the predicted clinically relevant dose-volume indices, the clinical interpretation of dosimetric errors can be obtained. We conclude that a clinically relevant dose-volume index based on the predicted 3D patient dose distribution could add to the clinical and biological considerations in the GPR, if we can guarantee the dose calculation accuracy of referenced TPS.
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.