A comparison between revised Manchester Point A and ICRU-89–recommended Point A definition absorbed-dose reporting using CT images in intracavitary brachytherapy for patients with cervical carcinoma

Mourya, Ankur; Choudhary, Sunil; Shahi, Uday Pratap; Sharma, Neeraj; Gautam, Himani; Patel, Ganeshkumar; Pradhan, Satyajit; Aggarwal, Lalit Mohan

doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2020.07.009

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The

is accepted as a less robust parameter for dose reporting compared with the

. 13 , 21 The lower

CV implies that the

is more robust than the expected

for the bladder when evaluated as mean course variations from tolerance. Distributions of all evaluated structures are displayed in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The 𝐷 0.1𝑐𝑐 CV is larger than the corresponding 𝐷 2𝑐𝑐 CV for all OARs except the bladder. The 𝐷 0.1𝑐𝑐 is accepted as a less robust parameter for dose reporting when compared to the 𝐷 2𝑐𝑐 [13,21]. The lower 𝐷 0.1𝑐𝑐 CV implies that the 𝐷 0.1𝑐𝑐 is more robust than the expected 𝐷 2𝑐𝑐…”

Section: Basic Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sharma et al studied Point A dosimetric variations from the given prescription in fractionated brachytherapy [20]. Despite the importance of continuing to use point doses in modern day cervical cancer brachytherapy, volumetric parameters such as the HRCTV have taken priority to Point A and other point dose parameters [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 20 Despite the importance of continuing to use point doses in modern day cervical cancer brachytherapy, volumetric parameters such as the HRCTV have taken priority to Point A and other point dose parameters. 21 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations