Literature DB >> 9608475

A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

D A Low1, W B Harms, S Mutic, J A Purdy.   

Abstract

The commissioning of a three-dimensional treatment planning system requires comparisons of measured and calculated dose distributions. Techniques have been developed to facilitate quantitative comparisons, including superimposed isodoses, dose-difference, and distance-to-agreement (DTA) distributions. The criterion for acceptable calculation performance is generally defined as a tolerance of the dose and DTA in regions of low and high dose gradients, respectively. The dose difference and DTA distributions complement each other in their useful regions. A composite distribution has recently been developed that presents the dose difference in regions that fail both dose-difference and DTA comparison criteria. Although the composite distribution identifies locations where the calculation fails the preselected criteria, no numerical quality measure is provided for display or analysis. A technique is developed to unify dose distribution comparisons using the acceptance criteria. The measure of acceptability is the multidimensional distance between the measurement and calculation points in both the dose and the physical distance, scaled as a fraction of the acceptance criteria. In a space composed of dose and spatial coordinates, the acceptance criteria form an ellipsoid surface, the major axis scales of which are determined by individual acceptance criteria and the center of which is located at the measurement point in question. When the calculated dose distribution surface passes through the ellipsoid, the calculation passes the acceptance test for the measurement point. The minimum radial distance between the measurement point and the calculation points (expressed as a surface in the dose-distance space) is termed the gamma index. Regions where gamma > 1 correspond to locations where the calculation does not meet the acceptance criteria. The determination of gamma throughout the measured dose distribution provides a presentation that quantitatively indicates the calculation accuracy. Examples of a 6 MV beam penumbra are used to illustrate the gamma index.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9608475     DOI: 10.1118/1.598248

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  553 in total

1.  Comparative analysis of SmartArc-based dual arc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Tsair-Fwu Lee; Pei-Ju Chao; Hui-Min Ting; Su-Hua Lo; Yu-Wen Wang; Chiu-Ching Tuan; Fu-Min Fang; Te-Jen Su
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  Effect of photon-beam energy on VMAT and IMRT treatment plan quality and dosimetric accuracy for advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marlies Pasler; Dietmar Georg; Holger Wirtz; Johannes Lutterbach
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  Toward a better understanding of the gamma index: Investigation of parameters with a surface-based distance method.

Authors:  Heng Li; Lei Dong; Lifei Zhang; James N Yang; Michael T Gillin; X Ronald Zhu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Dose verifications by use of liquid ionization chamber of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

Authors:  Kunihiko Tateoka; Atsushi Oouchi; Kensei Nakata; Masato Hareyama
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-06-07

5.  A phantom model demonstration of tomotherapy dose painting delivery, including managed respiratory motion without motion management.

Authors:  Michael W Kissick; Xiaohu Mo; Keisha C McCall; Leah K Schubert; David C Westerly; Thomas R Mackie
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Quality assurance of an image guided intracranial stereotactic positioning system for radiosurgery treatment with helical tomotherapy.

Authors:  Emilie T Soisson; Nick Hardcastle; Wolfgang A Tomé
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Dose discrepancies in the buildup region and their impact on dose calculations for IMRT fields.

Authors:  Shu-Hui Hsu; Jean M Moran; Yu Chen; Ravi Kulasekere; Peter L Roberson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Practical guidelines for routine intensity-modulated radiotherapy verification: pre-treatment verification with portal dosimetry and treatment verification with in vivo dosimetry.

Authors:  A J Vinall; A J Williams; V E Currie; A Van Esch; D Huyskens
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Optical artefact characterization and correction in volumetric scintillation dosimetry.

Authors:  Daniel Robertson; Cheukkai Hui; Louis Archambault; Radhe Mohan; Sam Beddar
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Dose calculation with respiration-averaged CT processed from cine CT without a respiratory surrogate.

Authors:  Adam C Riegel; Moiz Ahmad; Xiaojun Sun; Tinsu Pan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.