FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2005869484> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2005869484 endingPage "653" @default.
• W2005869484 startingPage "645" @default.
• W2005869484 abstract "Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the dose calculation accuracy of advanced kernel-based methods and Monte Carlo algorithms in commercially available treatment planning systems. Materials and methods Following dose calculation algorithms and treatment planning (TPS) systems were compared: the collapsed cone (CC) convolution algorithm available in Oncentra Masterplan, the XVMC Monte Carlo algorithm implemented in iPlan and Monaco, and the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) implemented in Eclipse. Measurements were performed with a calibrated ionization chamber and radiochromic EBT type films in a homogenous polystyrene phantom and in heterogeneous lung phantoms. Single beam tests, conformal treatment plans and IMRT plans were validated. Dosimetric evaluations included absolute dose measurements, 1D γ-evaluation of depth–dose curves and profiles using 2 mm and 2% dose difference criteria for single beam tests, and γ-evaluation of axial planes for composite treatment plans applying 3 mm and 3% dose difference criteria. Results Absolute dosimetry revealed no large differences between MC and advanced kernel dose calculations. 1D γ-evaluation showed significant discrepancies between depth–dose curves in different phantom geometries. For the CC algorithm γmean values were 0.90 ± 0.74 vs. 0.43 ± 0.41 in heterogeneous vs. homogeneous conditions and for the AAA γmean values were 1.13 ± 0.91 vs. 0.41 ± 0.28, respectively. In general, 1D γ results obtained with both MC TPS were similar in both phantoms and on average equal to 0.5 both for profiles and depth–dose curves. The results obtained with the CC algorithm in heterogeneous phantoms were slightly better in comparison to the AAA algorithm. The 2D γ-evaluation results of IMRT plans and four-field plans showed smaller mean γ-values for MC dose calculations compared to the advanced kernel algorithms (γmean for four-field plan and IMRT obtained with Monaco MC were 0.28 and 0.5, respectively, vs. 0.40 and 0.54 for the AAA). Conclusion All TPS investigated in this study demonstrated accurate dose calculation in homogenous and heterogeneous phantoms. Commercially available TPS with Monte Carlo option performed best in heterogeneous phantoms. However, the difference between the CC and the MC algorithms was found to be small." @default.
• W2005869484 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2005869484 creator A5021925904 @default.
• W2005869484 creator A5027497030 @default.
• W2005869484 creator A5054850233 @default.
• W2005869484 creator A5058461342 @default.
• W2005869484 creator A5060127961 @default.
• W2005869484 creator A5061955040 @default.
• W2005869484 date "2009-12-01" @default.
• W2005869484 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2005869484 title "Advanced kernel methods vs. Monte Carlo-based dose calculation for high energy photon beams" @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1964310598 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1967121735 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1969798638 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1978344596 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1983813116 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1989453992 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1996475956 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W1999165305 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2009530441 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2043225517 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2047762563 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2059978466 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2065034761 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2065252864 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2075145464 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2077593678 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2078015531 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2079887738 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2083361336 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2094142506 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2094344741 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2099104461 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2106391737 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2115461153 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2118094817 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2138870596 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2147145391 @default.
• W2005869484 cites W2168031882 @default.
• W2005869484 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.10.013" @default.
• W2005869484 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19926153" @default.
• W2005869484 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2005869484 type Work @default.
• W2005869484 sameAs 2005869484 @default.
• W2005869484 citedByCount "53" @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842012 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842013 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842014 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842015 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842016 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842017 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842018 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842020 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842021 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842022 @default.
• W2005869484 countsByYear W20058694842023 @default.
• W2005869484 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2005869484 hasAuthorship W2005869484A5021925904 @default.
• W2005869484 hasAuthorship W2005869484A5027497030 @default.
• W2005869484 hasAuthorship W2005869484A5054850233 @default.
• W2005869484 hasAuthorship W2005869484A5058461342 @default.
• W2005869484 hasAuthorship W2005869484A5060127961 @default.
• W2005869484 hasAuthorship W2005869484A5061955040 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C104293457 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C114614502 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C19499675 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C201645570 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C74193536 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConcept C75088862 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C104293457 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C105795698 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C11413529 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C114614502 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C126838900 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C192562407 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C19499675 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C201645570 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C2989005 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C33923547 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C509974204 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C71924100 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C74193536 @default.
• W2005869484 hasConceptScore W2005869484C75088862 @default.
• W2005869484 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2005869484 hasLocation W20058694841 @default.
• W2005869484 hasLocation W20058694842 @default.
• W2005869484 hasOpenAccess W2005869484 @default.
• W2005869484 hasPrimaryLocation W20058694841 @default.
• W2005869484 hasRelatedWork W1972096864 @default.
• W2005869484 hasRelatedWork W1982008128 @default.

• next