↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the optimal combinations of modulation factor and pitch for Helical TomoTherapy plans made with TomoEdge using Pareto optimal fronts

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Evaluation of the optimal combinations of modulation factor and pitch for Helical TomoTherapy plans made with TomoEdge using Pareto optimal fronts
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0497-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geert De Kerf, Dirk Van Gestel, Lobke Mommaerts, Danielle Van den Weyngaert, Dirk Verellen

Abstract

Modulation factor (MF) and pitch have an impact on Helical TomoTherapy (HT) plan quality and HT users mostly use vendor-recommended settings. This study analyses the effect of these two parameters on both plan quality and treatment time for plans made with TomoEdge planning software by using the concept of Pareto optimal fronts. More than 450 plans with different combinations of pitch [0.10-0.50] and MF [1.2-3.0] were produced. These HT plans, with a field width (FW) of 5 cm, were created for five head and neck patients and homogeneity index, conformity index, dose-near-maximum (D2), and dose-near-minimum (D98) were analysed for the planning target volumes, as well as the mean dose and D2 for most critical organs at risk. For every dose metric the median value will be plotted against treatment time. A Pareto-like method is used in the analysis which will show how pitch and MF influence both treatment time and plan quality. For small pitches (≤0.20), MF does not influence treatment time. The contrary is true for larger pitches (≥0.25) as lowering MF will both decrease treatment time and plan quality until maximum gantry speed is reached. At this moment, treatment time is saturated and only plan quality will further decrease. The Pareto front analysis showed optimal combinations of pitch [0.23-0.45] and MF > 2.0 for a FW of 5 cm. Outside this range, plans will become less optimal. As the vendor-recommended settings fall within this range, the use of these settings is validated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Other 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 8 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Computer Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 36%

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 17 September 2015.
All research outputs
#4,500,475
of 9,722,866 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#308
of 1,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,853
of 239,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#22
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,722,866 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,177 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 239,432 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 61% of its contemporaries.