Relationship between the Patients’ Setup Errors with Dosimetric and Radiobiologic Parameters in Whole Breast Radiotherapy
Frontiers in Biomedical Technologies, ISSN: 2345-5837, Vol: 10, Issue: 3, Page: 268-276
2023
- 1Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures1
- Readers1
Article Description
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effect of the patients’ setup errors on dosimetric and radiobiologic parameters for left-sided Whole-Breast Irradiation (WBI) in three different radiotherapy techniques, including Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), Field-In-Field (FIF), and Conventional Wedge (CW). Materials and Methods: Computed Tomography (CT) images of 10 female patients with early-stage left-sided breast cancer were used to simulate different radiotherapy techniques (IMRT, FIF, and CW). The dosimetric parameters; Conformity Index (CI), Homogeneity Index (HI), the dose received by at least 95% (D95%) of Planning Tumor Volume (PTV), the volume of lung and heart that respectively received at least 20% (V20%) and 40% (V40%) of the prescribed dose, as well as, the radiobiologic parameters, including Tumor Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) were assessed for setup errors in patients. The setup errors were assessed by shifting the isocenters and gantry angles of the treatment plans. Results: The D95% of the PTV for an isocenter misplacement plan in the posterior direction decreased by 66.99 (IMRT), 71.86 (CW), and 68.25% (FIF). The TCP of the PTV was reduced by 26.66, 39.16, and 36.97% for IMRT, CW, and FIF techniques, respectively. Increasing gantry angle by a ±10 degree caused a 43%, 41%, and 41% decrease in the D95% of IMRT, FIF, and CW techniques, respectively. The TCP values decreased about 18% in all three techniques with a ±10 degree gantry angle shift; however, the NTCP values of the heart and lungs increased for all three methods. The CI and HI values had significantly more changes with increasing setup errors in the IMRT than in the two techniques. Conclusion: The radiobiologic parameters in IMRT were less sensitive to setup errors compared to FIF and CW techniques. The radiobiological parameters can help estimate the setup errors along with physical parameters during breast radiotherapy.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85166765210&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/fbt.v10i3.13155; https://publish.kne-publishing.com/index.php/fbt/article/view/13155; https://dx.doi.org/10.18502/fbt.v10i3.13155; https://chooser.crossref.org/?doi=10.18502%2Ffbt.v10i3.13155
Knowledge E DMCC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know