| Title |
To propose adding index of achievement (IOA) to IMRT QA process
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-018-1055-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dong-Su Kim, Siyong Kim, Seong-Hee Kang, Tae-Ho Kim, So-Hyun Park, Kyeong-Hyeon Kim, Min-Seok Cho, Dong-Seok Shin, Yu-Yun Noh, Jin-Beom Chung, Tae Suk Suh |
| Abstract |
In intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA), evaluation of QA result using a pass/non-pass strategy under an acceptance criterion often suffers from lack of information on how good the plan is in absolute manner. In this study, we suggested adding an index system, previously developed for dose painting technique, to current IMRT QA process for better understanding of QA result. The index system consists of three indices, index of achievement (IOA), index of hotness (IOH) and index of coldness (IOC). As indicated by its name, IOA does measure the level of agreement. IOH and IOC, on the other hand, measure the magnitude of overdose and underdose, respectively. A systematic analysis was performed with three 1-dimensional hypothetical dose distributions to investigate the characteristics of the index system. The feasibility of the system was also assessed with clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA cases from 8 head & neck and 5 prostate patients. In both simulation studies, certain amount of errors was intentionally induced to each dose distribution. Furthermore, we applied the proposed system to compare calculated with actual measured data for a total of 60 patients (30 head & neck and 30 prostate cases). QA analysis was made using both the index system and gamma method, and results were compared. While the gamma evaluation showed limited sensitivity in evaluating QA result depending on the level of tolerance criteria used, the proposed indices tended to better distinguish plans in terms of the amount of errors. Hotness and coldness of prescribed dose in the plan could be evaluated quantitatively by the indices. The proposed index system provides information with which IMRT QA result would be better evaluated, especially when gamma pass rates are identical or similar among multiple plans. In addition, the independency of the index system on acceptance criteria would help making clear communications among readers of published articles and researchers in multi-institutional studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 38% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 38% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,010,626
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#918
of 2,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,841
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#17
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.