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.
Evaluation of superficial dosimetry between treatment planning system and measurement for several breast cancer treatment techniques
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4770285
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770285
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770285
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

An example of dose distribution in standard tangential breast radiotherapy. The area receiving >90% of the prescribed dose is color washed. The arrows indicate the region not receiving the prescribed dose that may be of potential concern in clinical situation.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(a) A humanoid acrylic phantom with layers of bolus mimicking breast tissue. EBT2 film was placed and irradiated. (b) An example of treatment planning for the phantom study. (c) Screen capture of in-house software. The position of EBT film at 3-, 6-, and 9-mm depth is shown as the lines drawn between superflab sheets. (d) Algorithm for resolution matching of the dose profile. The profile and color wash represent the dose profile derived from the planned dose distribution and film measurement, respectively.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Distance between the skin and 95% isodose line (δ [mm]): the data of 111 patients is shown.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The surface dose measured with EBT2 film at various locations and techniques. Abbreviation, FF: field in field, eComp: electronic compensator, IMRT: Intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Comparison between dose of wedge plans as calculated with TPS (upper solid-dot lines) and measured with EBT2 film (upper solid single line). Bottom solid-dot lines represent the percent difference between these two profiles. Dose profiles at a (a) 3-mm, (b) 6-mm, and (c) 11-mm depth are shown. Solid and dotted lines represent the dose profile calculated with a 2.5 and 1 mm grid size, respectively.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Comparison between doses as calculated with a planning system (upper solid-dot lines) and measured with EBT2 film (upper solid single line). Bottom solid-dot lines represent the percent difference between these two profiles. Dose profiles of the (a) FIF: field in field, (b) eComp: electronic compensator, and (c) IMRT techniques are shown. Solid and dotted lines represent the dose profile calculated with a 2.5 and 1 mm grid size, respectively.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Comparison between dose of wedge plans with mixed-energy as calculated with TPS (upper solid-dot lines) and measured with EBT2 film (upper solid single line). Bottom solid-dot lines represent the percent difference between these two profiles. Dose profiles at a (a) 3-mm, (b) 6-mm, and (c) 11-mm depth are shown. Solid and dotted lines represent the dose profile calculated with a 2.5 and 1 mm grid size, respectively.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770285
2012-12-19
2014-04-23
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Evaluation of superficial dosimetry between treatment planning system and measurement for several breast cancer treatment techniques
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770285
10.1118/1.4770285
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM