Literature DB >> 16467577

On dose distribution comparison.

Steve B Jiang1, Greg C Sharp, Toni Neicu, Ross I Berbeco, Stella Flampouri, Thomas Bortfeld.   

Abstract

In radiotherapy practice, one often needs to compare two dose distributions. Especially with the wide clinical implementation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy, software tools for quantitative dose (or fluence) distribution comparison are required for patient-specific quality assurance. Dose distribution comparison is not a trivial task since it has to be performed in both dose and spatial domains in order to be clinically relevant. Each of the existing comparison methods has its own strengths and weaknesses and there is room for improvement. In this work, we developed a general framework for comparing dose distributions. Using a new concept called maximum allowed dose difference (MADD), the comparison in both dose and spatial domains can be performed entirely in the dose domain. Formulae for calculating MADD values for various comparison methods, such as composite analysis and gamma index, have been derived. For convenience in clinical practice, a new measure called normalized dose difference (NDD) has also been proposed, which is the dose difference at a point scaled by the ratio of MADD to the predetermined dose acceptance tolerance. Unlike the simple dose difference test, NDD works in both low and high dose gradient regions because it considers both dose and spatial acceptance tolerances through MADD. The new method has been applied to a test case and a clinical example. It was found that the new method combines the merits of the existing methods (accurate, simple, clinically intuitive and insensitive to dose grid size) and can easily be implemented into any dose/intensity comparison tool.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16467577     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/4/001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  13 in total

1.  A 'quad-phantom' film dosimeter for use as a multi-planar verification tool for PRESAGE/optical-CT.

Authors:  L Stunja; A Thomas; J Adamovics; J Deasy; M Oldham
Journal:  J Phys Conf Ser       Date:  2010

2.  Commissioning and benchmarking a 3D dosimetry system for clinical use.

Authors:  Andrew Thomas; Joseph Newton; John Adamovics; Mark Oldham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Comprehensive quality assurance for base of skull IMRT.

Authors:  A Thomas; J O'Daniel; J Adamovics; G Ibbott; M Oldham
Journal:  J Phys Conf Ser       Date:  2013

4.  A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning-proton dose distributions.

Authors:  Bryce C Allred; Jie Shan; Daniel G Robertson; Todd A DeWees; Jiajian Shen; Wei Liu; Joshua B Stoker
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  GPU-based fast gamma index calculation.

Authors:  Xuejun Gu; Xun Jia; Steve B Jiang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 6.  Polymer gel dosimetry.

Authors:  C Baldock; Y De Deene; S Doran; G Ibbott; A Jirasek; M Lepage; K B McAuley; M Oldham; L J Schreiner
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Predicting gamma evaluation results of patient-specific head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy quality assurance based on multileaf collimator patterns and fluence map features: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Sangutid Thongsawad; Somyot Srisatit; Todsaporn Fuangrod
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 2.243

8.  Determination of inflection points of CyberKnife dose profiles within acceptability criteria of deviations in measurements.

Authors:  Neslihan Sarıgül; Fazlı Yağız Yedekçi; Mete Yeğiner; Fadıl Akyol; Haluk Utku
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2019-11-12

9.  Evaluation of a clinically intuitive quality assurance method.

Authors:  H Norris; A Thomas; M Oldham
Journal:  J Phys Conf Ser       Date:  2013

10.  Breaking bad IMRT QA practice.

Authors:  Strahinja Stojadinovic; Luo Ouyang; Xuejun Gu; Arnold Pompoš; Qinan Bao; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.