↓ Skip to main content

Dose calculation of Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment with flattening filter free beams and the potential role of calculation grid size

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Dose calculation of Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment with flattening filter free beams and the potential role of calculation grid size
Published in
Radiation Oncology, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0357-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baotian Huang, Lili Wu, Peixian Lin, Chuangzhen Chen

Abstract

The study aimed to appraise the dose differences between Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment for lung cancer with flattening filter free (FFF) beams. Additionally, the potential role of the calculation grid size (CGS) on the dose differences between the two algorithms was also investigated. SBRT plans with 6X and 10X FFF beams produced from the CT scan data of 10 patients suffering from stage I lung cancer were enrolled in this study. Clinically acceptable treatment plans with AAA were recalculated using AXB with the same monitor units (MU) and identical multileaf collimator (MLC) settings. Furthermore, different CGS (2.5 mm and 1 mm) in the two algorithms was also employed to investigate their dosimetric impact. Dose to planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) between the two algorithms were compared. PTV was separated into PTV_soft (density in soft-tissue range) and PTV_lung (density in lung range) for comparison. The dose to PTV_lung predicted by AXB was found to be 1.33 ± 1.12% (6XFFF beam with 2.5 mm CGS), 2.33 ± 1.37% (6XFFF beam with 1 mm CGS), 2.81 ± 2.33% (10XFFF beam with 2.5 mm CGS) and 3.34 ± 1.76% (10XFFF beam with 1 mm CGS) lower compared with that by AAA, respectively. However, the dose directed to PTV_soft was comparable. For OARs, AXB predicted a slightly lower dose to the aorta, chest wall, spinal cord and esophagus, regardless of whether the 6XFFF or 10XFFF beam was utilized. Exceptionally, dose to the ipsilateral lung was significantly higher with AXB. AXB principally predicts lower dose to PTV_lung compared to AAA and the CGS contributes to the relative dose difference between the two algorithms.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 79 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Other 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 30 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,354,251
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#640
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,779
of 255,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#35
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 255,469 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.