↓ Skip to main content

Dosimetric comparison of different treatment modalities for stereotactic radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dosimetric comparison of different treatment modalities for stereotactic radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13014-017-0890-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shih-Ming Hsu, Yuan-Chun Lai, Chien-Chung Jeng, Chia-Ying Tseng

Abstract

The modalities for performing stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) on the brain include the cone-based linear accelerator (linac), the flattening filter-free (FFF) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) linac, and tomotherapy. In this study, the cone-based linac, FFF-VMAT linac, and tomotherapy modalities were evaluated by measuring the differences in doses delivered during brain SRT and experimentally assessing the accuracy of the output radiation doses through clinical measurements. We employed a homemade acrylic dosimetry phantom representing the head, within which a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and radiochromic EBT3 film were installed. Using the conformity/gradient index (CGI) and Paddick methods, the quality of the doses delivered by the various SRT modalities was evaluated. The quality indicators included the uniformity, conformity, and gradient indices. TLDs and EBT3 films were used to experimentally assess the accuracy of the SRT dose output. The dose homogeneity indices of all the treatment modalities were lower than 1.25. The cone-based linac had the best conformity for all tumors, regardless of the tumor location and size, followed by the FFF-VMAT linac; tomography was the worst-performing treatment modality in this regard. The cone-based linac had the best gradient, regardless of the tumor location and size, whereas the FFF-VMAT linac had a better gradient than tomotherapy for a large tumor diameter (28 mm). The TLD and EBT3 measurements of the dose at the center of tumors indicated that the average difference between the measurements and the calculated dose was generally less than 4%. When the 3% 3-mm gamma passing rate metric was used, the average passing rates of all three treatment modalities exceeded 98%. Regarding the dose, the cone-based linac had the best conformity and steepest dose gradient for tumors of different sizes and distances from the brainstem. The results of this study suggest that SRT should be performed using the cone-based linac on tumors that require treatment plans with a steep dose gradient, even as the tumor is slightly irregular, we should also consider using a high dose gradient of the cone base to treat and protect the normal tissue. If normal tissues require special protection exist at positions that are superior or inferior to the tumor, we can consider using tomotherapy or Cone base with couch at 0° for treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 12 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,864,357
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#339
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,267
of 289,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,071 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.