ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2023
Evaluation of Radiation Treatment Planning Algorithms in IMRT and VMAT: A Comparative Dosimetric Study in Lung Equivalent Heterogeneous Medium.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Site-Specific Assessment of Statistical Process Control to Set Tolerance and Action Limits for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance in RapidArc Treatment Delivery.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025Article
- Evaluation of radiation treatment plan quality in head and neck cancer: a comparative analysis of RapidArc technique with flattening filter and flattening filter-free photon beams.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Dosimetric Efficacy of RapidArc and Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy Techniques in Head-and-Neck Cancers.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Radiotherapy, computation of dose is important since in a small field with heterogeneity, dose is usually computed with discrepancies. Objective: The present study was aimed to evaluate the dosimetry of treatment planning algorithms in lung equivalent heterogeneous medium for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) with step and shoot Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (ss-IMRT), and dynamic Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (d-IMRT). Material and Methods: In this experimental study, Computerized Imaging Reference System (CIRS) phantom was used with an inhomogeneous Racemosa wood cylinder for two types of tumors, namely, Left Lung Central Tumor (LCT) and Left Lung Peripheral Tumor (LPT) in the CIRS left lung cavity. The computed tomography (CT) datasets were employed with the generation of VMAT, d-IMRT and ss-IMRT plans for the LCT and LPT irradiated with 6 MV photon beams. In this study, the accuracy and efficacy of two algorithms: Monte Carlo (MC) and the Pencil Beam (PB), from the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS), were tested by using Gafchromic EBT3 films and CIRS thorax phantom. Results: Regardless of treatment techniques, both algorithms exhibited higher divergence in LPT than LCT. In both LCT and LPT, the highest deviation was near the tumor-lung junction. However, the deviation was higher in the PB algorithm than MC algorithm, with a minimally acceptable variation of -0.8%. Conclusion: The MC algorithm shows more consistency for EBT3 measured dose in lung equivalent heterogeneous medium. However, accurate dose predictions are complicated due to electronic disequilibrium within and at the interface of inhomogeneity. These constraints may cause variations from the anticipated outcomes of the treatments.
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.