↓ Skip to main content

Technical Note: A treatment plan comparison between dynamic collimation and a fixed aperture during spot scanning proton therapy for brain treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Technical Note: A treatment plan comparison between dynamic collimation and a fixed aperture during spot scanning proton therapy for brain treatment
Published in
Medical Physics, July 2016
DOI 10.1118/1.4955117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blake Smith, Edgar Gelover, Alexandra Moignier, Dongxu Wang, Ryan T Flynn, Liyong Lin, Maura Kirk, Tim Solberg, Daniel E Hyer

Abstract

To quantitatively assess the advantages of energy-layer specific dynamic collimation system (DCS) versus a per-field fixed aperture for spot scanning proton therapy (SSPT). Five brain cancer patients previously planned and treated with SSPT were replanned using an in-house treatment planning system capable of modeling collimated and uncollimated proton beamlets. The uncollimated plans, which served as a baseline for comparison, reproduced the target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing of the clinically delivered plans. The collimator opening for the fixed aperture-based plans was determined from the combined cross sections of the target in the beam's eye view over all energy layers which included an additional margin equivalent to the maximum beamlet displacement for the respective energy of that energy layer. The DCS-based plans were created by selecting appropriate collimator positions for each row of beam spots during a Raster-style scanning pattern which were optimized to maximize the dose contributions to the target and limited the dose delivered to adjacent normal tissue. The reduction of mean dose to normal tissue adjacent to the target, as defined by a 10 mm ring surrounding the target, averaged 13.65% (range: 11.8%-16.9%) and 5.18% (2.9%-7.1%) for the DCS and fixed aperture plans, respectively. The conformity index, as defined by the ratio of the volume of the 50% isodose line to the target volume, yielded an average improvement of 21.35% (19.4%-22.6%) and 8.38% (4.7%-12.0%) for the DCS and fixed aperture plans, respectively. The ability of the DCS to provide collimation to each energy layer yielded better conformity in comparison to fixed aperture plans.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 11 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 30%
Psychology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#5,993
of 7,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,095
of 378,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#175
of 312 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 378,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 312 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.