• Türkçe
    • English
  • English 
    • Türkçe
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   [email protected]
  • Fakülteler
  • Tıp Fakültesi
  • Makale Koleksiyonu
  • View Item
  •   [email protected]
  • Fakülteler
  • Tıp Fakültesi
  • Makale Koleksiyonu
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Dosimetric evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy of different algorithms for two different treatment techniques during whole breast irradiation

Thumbnail

View/Open

Tam Metin / Full Text (3.762Mb)

Access

info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess

Date

2019

Author

Acar, Hilal
Yıldırım Altınok, Ayşe
Cebe, Mehmet Sıddık

Metadata

Show full item record

Citation

Acar, H., Yıldırım Altınok, A. ve Cebe, M. S. (2019). Dosimetric evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy of different algorithms for two different treatment techniques during whole breast irradiation. Journal of Radiation Oncology, 8(3), 337-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-019-00404-z

Abstract

Objective In-field, partially in-field, and out-of-field organ doses calculated by the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) were compared with experimentally measured data for two different techniques of whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). Methods The field-in-field conformal radiotherapy (FIF) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were calculated by AAA and dose-to-water (Dw) and dose-to-medium (Dm) options used by AXB. In field (planning target volume (PTV)), partially in-field (ipsilateral lung, heart, left ascending coronary artery (LAD)), and out-of-field (contralateral lung and contralateral breast) organ at risk (OAR) doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and EBT3 films in an anthropomorphic phantom. Furthermore, target dose differences between AAA and AXB were analyzed for the corresponding real patients. Results For the verification of planar dose distribution in PTV, the percentages of pixels that passed the gamma analysis with the +/- 3%/3mm criteria were 93.5%, 93.9%, and 99.0% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively, averaged over all IMRT and FIF plans. For the verification of point doses within the target using TLD in the randophantom, the max percentage deviations between the calculated and measured data when averaged over all IMRT and FIF plans were 6.8%, 4.7%, and 3.9% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively. Conclusion When using the Eclipse TPS for breast cancer, AXB should be used instead of the AAA algorithm, bearing in mind that the AXB may still overestimate all OARs doses.

WoS Q Kategorisi

Q1

Source

Journal of Radiation Oncology

Volume

8

Issue

3

URI

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-019-00404-z
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/4609

Collections

  • Makale Koleksiyonu [3205]
  • WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu [5545]



DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
@mire NV
 

 




| Guide | Contact |

[email protected]

by OpenAIRE
Advanced Search

sherpa/romeo

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsInstitution AuthorORCIDTitlesSubjectsTypeLanguageDepartmentCategoryWoS Q ValueScopus Q ValuePublisherAccess TypeThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsInstitution AuthorORCIDTitlesSubjectsTypeLanguageDepartmentCategoryWoS Q ValueScopus Q ValuePublisherAccess Type

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Google Analytics Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
@mire NV
 

 


|| Guide || Library || İstanbul Medipol University || OAI-PMH ||

Kütüphane ve Dokümantasyon Daire Başkanlığı, İstabul, Turkey
If you find any errors in content, please contact: [email protected]

Creative Commons License
[email protected] by İstanbul Medipol University Institutional Repository is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License..

[email protected]:


DSpace 6.2

tarafından İdeal DSpace hizmetleri çerçevesinde özelleştirilerek kurulmuştur.