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.
Fractal analysis for assessing the level of modulation of IMRT fields
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.3633912
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/10/10.1118/1.3633912
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/10/10.1118/1.3633912

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Representative plots showing the scale ranges (x-axes) corresponding to the linear regions that were used to compute the slope of the graphs from which FD is computed using the (a) variation, (b) power spectrum, and (c) variogram methods. The scale ranges are in terms of the logarithm of the number of pixels for (a) and (c) and the logarithm of the pixel frequency for (b), where a pixel side length = 0.786 mm.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Three representative contour plots of the same IMRT actual fluence field that was planned in Eclipse IMRT using x-y fluence smoothing of (a) 50-40, (b) 30-20, and (c) 20-10 to illustrate the change in modulation with the fluence smoothing parameters. The corresponding variogram fractal dimensions for the plots are: (a) 2.16, (b) 2.22, and (c) 2.27.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Each point on the graphs represents the FD and its associated uncertainty as estimated from the standard deviation of 80 fractional Brownian surfaces of known fractal dimension. Results are shown for: (a) the variation method, (b) the power spectrum method, and (c) the variogram method.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Variogram FD analysis of 7 IMRT fields of the same head and neck case planned using three x-y fluence smoothing parameters. The LAO105 field corresponds to the contour images shown in Fig. 2.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Boxplot displays of the distributions of the variogram FD, number of MUs, average leaf gap, and 2D MI of the moderate and high modulation IMRT fields.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

ROC curves representing the classification performance of the variogram FD, number of MUs, average leaf gap, and 2D MI as indicators of moderate versus high modulation IMRT fields.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Boxplot displays of the distributions of the gamma analysis of the planar dose measurements made with the MapCHECK™ 2D diode detector array device. The gamma analyses are shown for different settings of PDD, DTA, Van Dyke gamma criteria, and dose difference threshold.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

AUC from the ROC analysis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/10/10.1118/1.3633912
2011-09-14
2014-04-16
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Fractal analysis for assessing the level of modulation of IMRT fields
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/10/10.1118/1.3633912
10.1118/1.3633912
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM