Navigation überspringen
Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Status: Bibliographieeintrag

Verfügbarkeit
Standort: ---
Exemplare: ---
heiBIB
 Online-Ressource
Verfasst von:Köck, Julia [VerfasserIn]   i
 Abo-Madyan, Yasser [VerfasserIn]   i
 Stieler, Florian [VerfasserIn]   i
 Fleckenstein, Jens [VerfasserIn]   i
 Wenz, Frederik [VerfasserIn]   i
 Lohr, Frank [VerfasserIn]   i
Titel:Clinical relevance of different dose calculation strategies for mediastinal IMRT in Hodgkin’s disease
Verf.angabe:J. Koeck, Y. Abo-Madyan, H.T. Eich, F. Stieler, J. Fleckenstein, J. Kriz, R.-P. Mueller, F. Wenz, F. Lohr
E-Jahr:2012
Jahr:29 June 2012
Umfang:7 S.
Fussnoten:Gesehen am 06.11.2018
Titel Quelle:Enthalten in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie
Ort Quelle:Berlin : Springer Medizin, 1997
Jahr Quelle:2012
Band/Heft Quelle:188(2012), 8, Seite 653-659
ISSN Quelle:1439-099X
Abstract:Background and purposeConventional algorithms show uncertainties in dose calculation already for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) might even increase these. We wanted to assess differences in dose distribution for pencil beam (PB), collapsed cone (CC), and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm for both 3D-CRT and IMRT in patients with mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma.Patients and methodsBased on 20 computed tomograph (CT) datasets of patients with mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma, we created treatment plans according to the guidelines of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) with PB and CC algorithm for 3D-CRT and with PB and MC algorithm for IMRT. Doses were compared for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk.ResultsFor 3D-CRT, PB overestimated PTV95 and V20 of the lung by 6.9% and 3.3% and underestimated V10 of the lung by 5.8%, compared to the CC algorithm. For IMRT, PB overestimated PTV95, V20 of the lung, V25 of the heart and V10 of the female left/right breast by 8.1%, 25.8%, 14.0% and 43.6%/189.1%, and underestimated V10 of the lung, V4 of the heart and V4 of the female left/right breast by 6.3%, 6.8% and 23.2%/15.6%, compared to MC.ConclusionThe PB algorithm underestimates low doses to the organs at risk and overestimates dose to PTV and high doses to the organs at risk. For 3D-CRT, a well-modeled PB algorithm is clinically acceptable; for IMRT planning, however, an advanced algorithm such as CC or MC should be used at least for part of the plan optimization.
DOI:doi:10.1007/s00066-012-0144-x
URL:Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.

Volltext: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00066-012-0144-x
 Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-012-0144-x
 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-012-0144-x
Datenträger:Online-Ressource
Sprache:eng
Sach-SW:Berechnungsalgorithmus
 Calculation algorithm
 Collapsed cone
 Collapsed-Cone
 Intensitätsmodulierte Strahlentherapie (IMRT)
 Intensity-modulated radiotherapy
 Monte Carlo
 Monte-Carlo
 Pencil beam
 Pencil-Beam
K10plus-PPN:1582611793
Verknüpfungen:→ Zeitschrift

Permanenter Link auf diesen Titel (bookmarkfähig):  https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/titel/68325171   QR-Code
zum Seitenanfang