Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37344987›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Dosimetric comparison and evaluation of two computational algorithms in VMAT treatment plans.

Maria Tsimpoukelli, George Patatoukas, Marina Chalkia, Nikolaos Kollaros, Andromachi Kougioumtzopoulou, Dimitra Michaletou, Vassilis Kouloulias, Kalliopi Platoni

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Maria Tsimpoukelli2nd Department of Radiology, Medical Physics Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
George Patatoukas2nd Department of Radiology, Medical Physics Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Marina Chalkia2nd Department of Radiology, Medical Physics Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Nikolaos Kollaros2nd Department of Radiology, Medical Physics Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Andromachi Kougioumtzopoulou2nd Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Dimitra Michaletou2nd Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Vassilis Kouloulias2nd Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Kalliopi Platoni2nd Department of Radiology, Medical Physics Unit, School of Medicine, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2977-7895

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to assess the accuracy and dosimetric impact of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in two situations. First, simple phantom geometries were set and analyzed; moreover, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) clinical plans for Head & Neck and lung cases were calculated and compared.

methodsFirst, a phantom study was performed to compare the algorithms with radiochromic EBT3 film doses using one PMMA slab phantom and two others containing foam or air gap. Subsequently, a clinical study was conducted, including 20 Head & Neck and 15 lung cases irradiated with the VMAT technique. The treatment plans calculated by AXB and AAA were evaluated in terms of planning target volume (PTV) coverage (V

resultsPhantom dose calculations showed a better agreement of AXB with the film measurements. In the clinical study, AXB plans exhibited lower Conformity Index and PTV V

conclusionsAXB demonstrated higher accuracy than AAA in dose calculations of both phantom and clinical conditions, specifically in interface regions, making it suitable for sites with large heterogeneities. Hence, such dosimetric differences between the two algorithms should always be considered in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAlgorithmsHumansRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAAAAcuros XBdose calculationvolumetric modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID37344987
PMCPMC10476991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.