1. bookVolume 26 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
30 Dec 2008
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Evaluation of the effect of random setup errors on dose delivery in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

Published Online: 03 Apr 2020
Page range: 55 - 60
Received: 01 Sep 2020
Accepted: 17 Feb 2020
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
30 Dec 2008
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English

Aim: To conduct a study on the effect of random setup errors inpatient for dose delivery in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy plans using Octavius 4D phantom.

Keywords

[1] Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, et al. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys. 2011;38(3):1313-1338.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25(5):656-661.Search in Google Scholar

[3] González-Castaño D, Peña J, Sánchez-Doblado F, et al. The change of response of ionization chambers in the penumbra and transmission regions: Impact for IMRT verification. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2008;46(4):373-380.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Kim KH, Kim DS, Kim TH, et al. The influence of the IMRT QA set-up error on the 2D and 3D gamma evaluation method as obtained by using Monte Carlo simulations. J Korean Phys Soc. 2015;67:1859-1867.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Thilmann C, Nill S, Tücking T, et al. Correction of patient positioning errors based on in-line cone beam CTs: clinical implementation and first experiences. Radiat Oncol. 2006;1:16.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Su J, Chen W, Yang H, et al. Different setup errors assessed by weekly cone-beam computed tomography on different registration in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:2545-2553.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Xu F, Wang J, Bai S, et al. Interfractional and intrafractional setup errors in radiotherapy for tumors analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography. Chinese J Cancer. 2008;27(1):1111-1116.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Delishaj D, Ursino S, Pasqualetti F, et al. Set-up errors in head and neck cancer treated with IMRT technique assessed by cone-beam computed tomography: a feasible protocol. Radiat Oncol J. 2018;36(1):54-62.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Deveau MA, Gutiérrez AN, Mackie TR, et al. Dosimetric impact of daily setup variations during treatment of canine nasal tumors using Intensity modulated radiation therapy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2010:51(1):90-96.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Zhang X, Shan G-p, Liu JP, Wang BB.. Margin evaluation of translational and rotational set-up errors in intensity modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer. SpringerPlus. 2016;5:153.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Hong TS, Tome WA, Chappell RJ, et al. The impact of daily setup variations on head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(3):779-788.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Dhanabalan R, Vivekanandan N, Prakash J, et al. SU-E-T-169: Characterization and Evaluation of Octavius 4D System for Patient Specific Quality Assurance Using 3D Gamma Index Analysis in VMAT. Medical Physics. 2013;40(6Part13):243.Search in Google Scholar

[13] McKenzie EM, Balter PA, Stingo FC, et al. Reproducibility in patient-specific IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(3):241-251.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo