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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The relative accuracy of 4D dose accumulation for lung radiotherapy using rigid dose projection versus dose recalculation on every breathing phase
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Physics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/mp.12069 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gilmer Valdes, Chul Lee, Stephen Tenn, Percy Lee, Clifford Robinson, Keisuke Iwamoto, Daniel Low, James M. Lamb |
| Abstract |
To investigate the accuracy of 4D dose accumulation using projection of dose calculated on the end-exhalation, mid-ventilation, or average intensity breathing phase CT scan, versus dose accumulation performed using full Monte Carlo dose recalculation on every breathing phase. Radiotherapy plans for 10 patients with stage I-II lung cancer were analyzed. All patients had respiratory-correlated computed tomography (4D-CT) performed as part of an IRB-approved research protocol. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans were optimized using the dose calculated by a commercially-available Monte Carlo algorithm on the end-exhalation 4D-CT phase. 4D dose accumulations using deformable registration were performed with a commercially available tool that projected the planned dose onto every breathing phase without recalculation, as well as with a Monte Carlo recalculation of the dose on all breathing phases. The 3D planned dose (3D-EX), the 3D dose calculated on the average intensity image (3D-AVE), and the 4D accumulations of the dose calculated on the end-exhalation phase CT (4D-PR-EX), the mid-ventilation phase CT (4D-PR-MID), and the average intensity image (4D-PR-AVE), respectively, were compared against the accumulation of the Monte Carlo dose recalculated on every phase. Plan evaluation metrics relating to target volumes and critical structures relevant for lung SBRT were analyzed. Plan evaluation metrics tabulated using 4D-PR-EX, 4D-PR-MID, and 4D-PR-AVE differed from those tabulated using Monte Carlo recalculation on every phase by an average of 0.14±0.70 Gy, -0.11±0.51 Gy, and 0.00±0.62 Gy, respectively. Plan evaluation metrics calculated from 3D-EX and 3D-AVE were acceptably accurate for target volumes and most critical structures, however deviations of between 8 and 13 Gy were observed for the proximal bronchial trees of 3 patients. The accuracy of 4D dose accumulated by projecting the dose calculated on the end-exhale, mid-ventilation, and average intensity images has been presented for 10 lung cancer SRBT plans. These methods involving projection without re-calculation may be sufficiently accurate compared to 4D dose accumulated from Monte Carlo recalculation on every phase, depending on institutional protocols. Projection of the dose calculated on the mid-ventilation scan was found to be statistically significantly more accurate than projection of the dose calculated on end-exhalation when considering target volume dose metrics. Use of 4D dose accumulation should be considered when evaluating normal tissue complication probabilities as well as in clinical situations where target volumes are directly inferior to mobile critical structures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 9 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Engineering | 7 | 18% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 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 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,151,418
of 24,565,648 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#5,078
of 7,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,840
of 338,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#74
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,565,648 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 7,888 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 338,676 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 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.