A UK national dosimetry audit was carried out to assess the accuracy of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) lung treatment delivery.
This mail-based audit used an anthropomorphic thorax phantom containing nine alanine pellets positioned in the lung region for dosimetry, as well as EBT3 film in the axial plane for isodose comparison. Centres used their local planning protocol/technique, creating 27 SABR plans. A range of delivery techniques including conformal, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and Cyberknife (CK) were used with six different calculation algorithms (collapsed cone, superposition, pencil-beam (PB), AAA, Acuros and Monte Carlo).
The mean difference between measured and calculated dose (excluding PB results) was 0.4±1.4% for alanine and 1.4±3.4% for film. PB differences were -6.1% and -12.9% respectively. The median of the absolute maximum isodose-to-isodose distances was 3mm (-6mm to 7mm) and 5mm (-10mm to +19mm) for the 100% and 50% isodose lines respectively.
Alanine and film is an effective combination for verifying dosimetric and geometric accuracy. There were some differences across dose algorithms, and geometric accuracy was better for VMAT and CK compared with conformal techniques. The alanine dosimetry results showed that planned and delivered doses were within ±3.0% for 25/27 SABR plans.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#12,337,812
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Radiotherapy & Oncology
#2,756
of 6,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,625
of 465,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiotherapy & Oncology
#25
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 465,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 66% of its contemporaries.
