2014
DOI: 10.1017/s1460396914000211
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: AimsTo verify the accuracy of two common absorbed dose calculation algorithms in comparison to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for the planning of the pituitary adenoma radiation treatment.Materials and methodsAfter validation of Linac's head modelling by MC in water phantom, it was verified in Rando phantom as a heterogeneous medium for pituitary gland irradiation. Then, equivalent tissue-air ratio (ETAR) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms were compared for a conventional three small non-coplanar fie… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Evaluation of the clinical tolerance of PTV and OAR should be implemented. Comparison of the CCC and MC algorithms in the pelvic region led to similar results and may be useful for detecting possible discrepancies in the TPS [35,36]. The results indicate that the percentage dose difference between the Compass software and the TPS calculation was <2.09% for analysis using the definition of D 1% , D 98% , and D mean in PTV for each group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Evaluation of the clinical tolerance of PTV and OAR should be implemented. Comparison of the CCC and MC algorithms in the pelvic region led to similar results and may be useful for detecting possible discrepancies in the TPS [35,36]. The results indicate that the percentage dose difference between the Compass software and the TPS calculation was <2.09% for analysis using the definition of D 1% , D 98% , and D mean in PTV for each group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Differences between the Monte-Carlo and collapsed cone and ETAR were found to be up to 6 and 10 %, respectively. 62 Nithiyanantham et al compared the XVMC Monte-Carlo dose calculation algorithm found in the commercial Monaco treatment planning system to measured doses for small field sizes (8 × 8 up to 40 × 40 mm) in soft tissue equivalent phantoms containing lung and bone heterogeneities. They observed deviations for the smallest field sizes in and around the soft-tissue heterogeneity interfaces.…”
Section: Dosimetry and Treatment Verificationmentioning
confidence: 99%