↓ Skip to main content

Integral Dose-Based Inverse Optimization May Reduce Side Effects in Radiotherapy of Prostate Carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
13 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.
Article details
Title
Integral Dose-Based Inverse Optimization May Reduce Side Effects in Radiotherapy of Prostate Carcinoma
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00027
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of this work is to apply a novel inverse optimization approach, based on utilization of quantitative imaging information in the optimization function, to prostate carcinoma. This new inverse optimization algorithm relies upon quantitative information derived from computed tomography (CT) imaging studies. The Hounsfield numbers of the CT voxels are converted to physical density, which in turn is used to calculate voxel mass and the corresponding integral dose, by summation over the product of dose and mass in each dose voxel. This integral dose is used for plan optimization through its global minimization. The optimization results are compared to the optimization results derived from most commonly used dose-volume-based inverse optimization, where objective functions are formed as summation over all dose voxels of the squared differences between voxel doses and user specified doses. The data from 25 prostate plans were optimized with dose-volume histogram (DVH) and integral dose (energy) minimization objective functions. The results obtained with the energy- and DVH-based optimization schemes were studied through commonly used dosimetric indices (DIs). Statistical equivalence tests were further performed to establish population-based significance results. Both DVH- and energy-based plans for each case were normalized so that 95% of the planning target volume receives the prescription dose. The average differences for the rectum and bladder DIs ranged from 1.6 to 25%, where the energy-based quantities were lower. For both femoral heads, the energy-based optimization-derived doses were lower on average by 32%. The statistical tests demonstrated that the significant differences in the tallied dose indices range from 2.7% to more than 50% for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads. For majority of the clinically relevant dosimetric quantities, energy-based inverse optimization performs better than the standard of care DVH-based optimization in prostate carcinoma. The population averaged statistically significant differences range from ~3 to ~50%. Therefore, this newly proposed optimization approach, incorporating explicitly quantitative imaging information in the inverse optimization function, holds potential for further reduction of complication rates in prostate cancer.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Researcher 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
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 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#28,640,276
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#13,826
of 26,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,755
of 353,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#56
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,633 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 353,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.