Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorAcar, Hilal
dc.contributor.authorYıldırım Altınok, Ayşe
dc.contributor.authorCebe, Mehmet Sıddık
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-23T11:22:23Z
dc.date.available2019-12-23T11:22:23Z
dc.date.issued2019en_US
dc.identifier.citationAcar, 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-zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-019-00404-z
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/4609
dc.description.abstractObjective 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAAAen_US
dc.subjectAXBen_US
dc.subjectFIFen_US
dc.subjectIMRTen_US
dc.subjectTLDen_US
dc.subjectEBT3en_US
dc.subjectRadiotherapyen_US
dc.subjectValidationen_US
dc.subjectWateren_US
dc.titleDosimetric evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy of different algorithms for two different treatment techniques during whole breast irradiationen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Radiation Oncologyen_US
dc.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Dahili Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Radyasyon Onkolojisi Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.authorid0000-0002-3936-080Xen_US
dc.identifier.volume8en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage337en_US
dc.identifier.endpage347en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s13566-019-00404-zen_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1en_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster