1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
IMRT planning and delivery incorporating daily dose from mega-voltage cone-beam computed tomography imaging
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2779127
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2779127
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2779127
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Examples of transverse images from a MV-CBCT dataset acquired with a dose of at isocenter using the 15 MU protocol. The bony anatomy, and soft tissue such as prostate, seminal vesicles, rectum, and bladder can be identified. (b) Distribution of dose deposited in the pelvis by a single fraction of CB imaging for the same prostate patient, with at isocenter. The isodose lines are labeled in cGy.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Example of isodose distributions (77.4, 60, 40, 20, 10, and ) on transverse, sagittal, and coronal CT slices from the IMRT plan (upper panel) and the IMRT plan optimized with daily MV-CBCT (lower panel) of a prostate patient. The latter was used for treatment.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

DVHs for target and OARs from plans optimized with CB and without CB for four prostate patients.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Mean dose and gEUD for target and OARs from plans optimized with CB and without CB for each of the four prostate patients. The rectum , bladder , and femoral-heads are also shown.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Average difference between the plans optimized with and without CB, in mean dose and gEUD for target and OARs as well as the rectum , bladder , and femoral-heads .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

DVHs for target and OARs from plans optimized with CB and compensated for CB for four prostate patients.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Mean dose and gEUD for target and OARs from plans optimized with CB and compensated for CB dose for each of the four prostate patients. The rectum , bladder and femoral-heads are also shown.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Average difference between the plans optimized with CB dose and compensated for CB dose, in mean dose and gEUD for target and OARs as well as the rectum , bladder , and femoral-heads .

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Relative difference of the contribution to the isocenter dose from each IMRT beam, between the plans optimized with and without CB, for the four prostate patients.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

The fluence distribution for the AP field of a prostate patient, relative to its central axis value. (a) Plan optimized without CB. (b) Plan optimized with CB. (c) Difference between the plans with and without CB.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

(a) Isodose distribution (50.4, 40, 30, 20, 10, and ) on a transverse slice for the head and neck case, from the IMRT plans optimized without and with CB. (b) DVHs for target and OARs from plans optimized without CB and with CB for the head and neck patient.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2779127
2007-09-12
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: IMRT planning and delivery incorporating daily dose from mega-voltage cone-beam computed tomography imaging
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/10/10.1118/1.2779127
10.1118/1.2779127
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM