Novel Anisotropic Margin Calculation Based On the Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Uncertainties in the Clinical Target Volume

Hajime, Ryu Kawamorita

doi:10.4172/2167-7964.1000202

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are reports that set the margin when the minimum CTV dose is greater than 95% of the administered dose in 90% of the total sample, 13 , 14 as well as reports that it is appropriate to set the V off shown when the cumulative probability is 90% of all samples as a margin. 12 Therefore, we also used the value of the vector offset at cumulative probability of 90% as a comparative index in this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are reports that set the margin when the minimum CTV dose is greater than 95% of the administered dose in 90% of the total sample, [13][14] as well as reports that it is appropriate to set the V off shown when the cumulative probability is 90% of all samples as a F I G U R E 6 In-house software for recording action events (patient entry, complete setup, gas evacuation, others). The events were automatically recorded by touching a button on the tablet device margin.…”

Section: Inter-fractional Setup Error For Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Verification of patient‐setup accuracy using a surface imaging system with steep measurement angle

Sasaki

Yamashita

Nakano

et al. 2022

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose We evaluate an SGRT device (Voxelan HEV‐600 M/RMS) installed with Radixact, with the view angle of the Voxelan's camera at 74 degrees. The accuracy of Voxelan with this steep angle was evaluated with phantom experiments and inter‐fractional setup errors of patients. Methods In the phantom experiments, the difference between the measured values of Voxelan from the truth was evaluated for translations and rotations. The inter‐fractional setup error between the setup using skin markers with laser localizer (laser setup: LS) and the setup using Voxelan (surface setup: SS) was compared for head and neck ( N = 19), chest ( N = 7) and pelvis ( N = 9) cases. The inter‐fractional setup error was calculated by subtracting from bone matching by megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) as ground truth. Results From the phantom experiments, the average difference between the measured values of Voxelan from the truth was within 1 mm and 1 degree. In all cases, inter‐fractional setup error based on MVCT was not significantly different between LS and SS by Welch's t ‐test ( P > 0.05). The vector offset of the LS for head and neck, chest, and pelvis were 6.5, 9.6, and 9.6 mm, respectively, and that of the SS were 5.8, 8.6, and 12.6 mm, respectively. Slight improvement was observed for the head and neck, and chest cases, however, pelvis cases were not improved because the umbilical region could not be clearly visualized as a reference. Conclusion The results show that SS in Voxelan with an installation angle of 74 degrees is equal to or better than LS.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inter-fractional Setup Error For Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%