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.
Comparison of 2D and 3D gamma analyses
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4860195
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4860195
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4860195

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) 2D and (b) 3D gamma maps of the same transverse slice of the gamma comparison in patient anatomy showing gamma failure (i.e., > 1) in the 2D map (average = 1.04) but passing in the 3D map (average = 0.52) for the 3%/3-mm acceptance criteria with a 15% low-dose threshold.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Average 2D vs 3D gammas and percentages of pixels passing gamma criteria for the (a) 50 QA and (b) 50 patient plans at the 5%/5-mm, 3%/3-mm, 2%/2-mm, and 1%/1-mm acceptance criteria with no low-dose threshold and a 1-mm data grid.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Average 2D vs 3D gammas and percentages of pixels passing gamma criteria for the 50 QA plans at the 3%/3-mm acceptance criteria using 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% (of the prescription dose) low-dose thresholds and a 1-mm data grid.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Average 2D vs 3D gammas and percentages of pixels passing gamma criteria for the 50 QA plans at the 3%/3-mm acceptance criteria with 1.0-, 1.5-, and 3.0-mm data grids and no low-dose threshold.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Average percentages of transverse slices passing computational gamma QA for the (a) 50 QA plans at the 5%/5-mm, 3%/3-mm, 2%/2-mm, and 1%/1-mm acceptance criteria with no low-dose threshold and a 1-mm data grid and (b) 50 QA plans at the 3%/3-mm acceptance criteria using 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% (of the prescription dose) low-dose thresholds and a 1-mm data grid.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4860195
2014-01-14
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Comparison of 2D and 3D gamma analyses
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4860195
10.1118/1.4860195
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM