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.
Monte Carlo evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom and IMRT clinical treatments for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2727314
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/5/10.1118/1.2727314
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/5/10.1118/1.2727314

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Experimental phantom composed by a succession of slabs of different materials, respectively, along the beam axis: polystyrene, cork (lung equivalent, L1), PMMA (muscle tissue equivalent), polyethylene (adipose tissue equivalent), cork (L2) and one slab of PMMA.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Comparison of measured (solid points) and calculated (MC, open circles; AAA, gray line) lateral profiles for a field (a), depth dose distributions for a field (b) and lateral profiles for a field (c). Insets represent differences between MC and measurements. Measurements and calculations were performed in a water phantom . Profiles were measured and calculated at depth.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Comparison of measured (points) and calculated (MC, open circles; AAA, crosses) output factors.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

PDDs comparison, for (a), (b) and (c) fields in the lung phantom, between measured (Meas., solid circles) and calculated by Monte Carlo (MC, open circles), AAA (gray line) and modified Batho heterogeneity correction (MB, black line). (d) shows an on-axis and off-axis PDDs comparison for a field between measured (Meas. solid circles), MC (on-axis, open circles, off-axis, crosses) and AAA (on-axis, gray line, off-axis, black line). The insets are the same plots with a better resolution for the analysis of the L1 region.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Lateral dose profile comparison, for (a), (b) and (c) fields acquired in the middle of the first lung equivalent region (L1), between measured (points) and calculated by Monte Carlo (open circles), AAA (gray line) and modified Batho heterogeneity correction (MB, black line).

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Lateral dose profiles comparison for a field. The profile was measured (solid-points line) and calculated (MC, open circles; AAA, gray line; MB, black line) below the cylinder ribs pattern. The (b) profile is a zoom of the (a) profile where statistical uncertainty is shown.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Ethmoid tumor in clinical conditions study. DVH comparison between AAA, MC, and MB for the PTV without air cavities and for the optical chiasm (a) and the left and right optical nerves (b).

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Ethmoid plan calculated with AAA (left) and MC (right) (a). PTV contour is represented by the thick contour. Profiles were acquired along the thick lines, one at the isocenter and the other more posterior. (b), (c) show dose profile comparison between AAA (gray line), MC (black line) and MB (dotted line), respectively, at the isocenter and 1.5 cm more posterior. (c) and (d) represent dose differences between AAA and MC for the profiles in (b) and (c), respectively.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Small lung tumor study. DVH comparison between AAA, MC and MB for the PTV in clinical conditions (CP).

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Isodose curve comparison between plan calculated by AAA (left) and MC (right) (a). The profiles were acquired along the thick lines and compared between AAA (gray line), MC (black line) and MB (dotted line) (b). (c) shows the difference between AAA and MC profiles.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

On-axis and off-axis output factors measured (Meas.) with a microionization chamber and calculated with AAA and MC.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Ethmoid tumor study. Comparison of the DVHs’ characteristic values [mean, standard deviation (STD), dose delivered to 95% of the volume and to 2% of the volume ] between AAA, MC and MB for the plan in clinical conditions (CP) and the plan with CT hounsfield units all set to zero (WP).

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Oropharynx tumor study. Comparison of DVHs’ characteristic values [mean dose, standard deviation (STD), dose delivered to 95% of the volume and to 2% of the volume ] for the bilateral plan and the total plan between AAA, MC, and MB.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Large lung tumor. Comparison of DVHs’ characteristics [mean, standard deviation (STD), dose delivered to 95% of the volume , to 2% of the volume and volume receiving 20 and ( and )] between AAA, MC, and MB.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Small lung tumor study. Comparison of DVHs’ characteristic values [mean, standard deviation (STD), dose delivered to 95% of the volume , to 2% of the volume and volume receiving 20 and ( and ] between AAA and MC for the plan in clinical conditions (CP) and the plan with CT hounsfield units all set to zero (WP).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/5/10.1118/1.2727314
2007-04-20
2014-04-20
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Monte Carlo evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom and IMRT clinical treatments for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/34/5/10.1118/1.2727314
10.1118/1.2727314
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM