2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.05.074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of IMRT QA measurement methodology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They found no significant dosimetric variation for either PTV or OARs that were introduced by random leaf position errors, whereas clinically significant differences (8% variation in D95% and approximately 12% in D0.1 cc to critical organs) were noted by systematic leaf position errors in complex IMRT plans. Alaswad and Coleman [77,78] concluded that when 2D gamma analysis is performed using a 3% dose difference and a 3-mm DTA, both QA results and the error detectability are heavily dependent on the plane chosen for measurement acquisition, and no relationship was found between the error levels in several verification planes.…”
Section: External Beam Radiotherapymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They found no significant dosimetric variation for either PTV or OARs that were introduced by random leaf position errors, whereas clinically significant differences (8% variation in D95% and approximately 12% in D0.1 cc to critical organs) were noted by systematic leaf position errors in complex IMRT plans. Alaswad and Coleman [77,78] concluded that when 2D gamma analysis is performed using a 3% dose difference and a 3-mm DTA, both QA results and the error detectability are heavily dependent on the plane chosen for measurement acquisition, and no relationship was found between the error levels in several verification planes.…”
Section: External Beam Radiotherapymentioning
confidence: 99%