Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1984994924> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 67 of
67
with 100 items per page.
- W1984994924 endingPage "S752" @default.
- W1984994924 startingPage "S752" @default.
- W1984994924 abstract "Dosimetric comparison of ‘VMAT’ and ‘IMRT’ plans in pelvic malignancies. CT datasets of 20 newly diagnosed patients of Ca Prostate, Ca Cervix, Ca Rectum and Ca Urinary Bladder, 5 cases of each, with good general condition, KPS >70 and non metastatic disease were included in the study. Double arc VMAT as well as IMRT treatment plans were generated for each patient using same CT datasets and treatment planning software. Dosimetric comparison in terms of target coverage, OAR (organ at risk) dose, homogeneity index (H.I), conformity index (C.I), low iso-dose volumes/ dose spillage, monitor units and treatment time was done. For organs at risk, doses were constrained as mean doses for parallel structures and maximum doses for serial structures. Mean doses were constrained to <60 Gy for rectum in prostate cases and < 50 Gy for other cases, <50 Gy for bladder, <40 Gy to small bowel and <40 Gy to femoral heads. Additional objectives were set on various volume thresholds. Plan parameters were derived from DVH and NTCP estimates. Target coverage was assessed using V95 i.e. volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose. Iso-dose volumes receiving 70%, 50%, 20% and 10% of prescribed dose were compared. The MUs per fraction and delivery time were scored to measure expected treatment efficiency. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software using paired t-test. Both IMRT and VMAT plans were equivalent in terms of target coverage, homogeneity and conformity index. Treatment time and average number of monitor units delivered per fraction was significantly large for patients treated with IMRT as compared to VMAT. In prostate cases, mean femoral head dose was significantly lower in VMAT plans. High iso-dose volumes (50% and 70%) were significantly large in IMRT plans whereas low iso-dose volumes (10% and 20%) were significantly large in VMAT plans. VMAT and IMRT are equivalent in terms of target coverage, dose homogeneity and conformity. Though mean dose of different organs at risk were lower in majority of VMAT plans, it was not found to be statistically significant. As the sample size of study was less, larger studies as well as clinical follow-up of patients are required to know the significant difference. However, VMAT significantly lowers treatment delivery time and monitor units delivered per fraction. Therefore, VMAT may be a preferred treatment modality in busy centers." @default.
- W1984994924 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W1984994924 creator A5027729398 @default.
- W1984994924 creator A5034669513 @default.
- W1984994924 creator A5047432074 @default.
- W1984994924 creator A5081529558 @default.
- W1984994924 creator A5091520858 @default.
- W1984994924 date "2013-10-01" @default.
- W1984994924 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
- W1984994924 title "Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) in Pelvic Malignancies: A Dosimetric Analysis" @default.
- W1984994924 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.06.1991" @default.
- W1984994924 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
- W1984994924 type Work @default.
- W1984994924 sameAs 1984994924 @default.
- W1984994924 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W1984994924 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W1984994924 hasAuthorship W1984994924A5027729398 @default.
- W1984994924 hasAuthorship W1984994924A5034669513 @default.
- W1984994924 hasAuthorship W1984994924A5047432074 @default.
- W1984994924 hasAuthorship W1984994924A5081529558 @default.
- W1984994924 hasAuthorship W1984994924A5091520858 @default.
- W1984994924 hasBestOaLocation W19849949241 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C201645570 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C2776235491 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C2779762690 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C2781074409 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C121608353 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C126322002 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C126838900 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C126894567 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C141071460 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C201645570 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C2776235491 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C2779762690 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C2781074409 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C2989005 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C509974204 @default.
- W1984994924 hasConceptScore W1984994924C71924100 @default.
- W1984994924 hasIssue "2" @default.
- W1984994924 hasLocation W19849949241 @default.
- W1984994924 hasOpenAccess W1984994924 @default.
- W1984994924 hasPrimaryLocation W19849949241 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W1964642503 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W1965767437 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W1971464107 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W1987445093 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W2000483113 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W2008116431 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W2049593891 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W2066875539 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W2068512982 @default.
- W1984994924 hasRelatedWork W4285491790 @default.
- W1984994924 hasVolume "87" @default.
- W1984994924 isParatext "false" @default.
- W1984994924 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W1984994924 magId "1984994924" @default.
- W1984994924 workType "article" @default.