↓ Skip to main content

Initial characterization, dosimetric benchmark and performance validation of Dynamic Wave Arc

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

2 tweeters


21 Dimensions

Readers on

50 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.
Initial characterization, dosimetric benchmark and performance validation of Dynamic Wave Arc
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0633-7
Pubmed ID

Manuela Burghelea, Dirk Verellen, Kenneth Poels, Cecilia Hung, Mitsuhiro Nakamura, Jennifer Dhont, Thierry Gevaert, Robbe Van den Begin, Christine Collen, Yukinori Matsuo, Takahiro Kishi, Viorica Simon, Masahiro Hiraoka, Mark de Ridder


Dynamic Wave Arc (DWA) is a clinical approach designed to maximize the versatility of Vero SBRT system by synchronizing the gantry-ring noncoplanar movement with D-MLC optimization. The purpose of this study was to verify the delivery accuracy of DWA approach and to evaluate the potential dosimetric benefits. DWA is an extended form of VMAT with a continuous varying ring position. The main difference in the optimization modules of VMAT and DWA is during the angular spacing, where the DWA algorithm does not consider the gantry spacing, but only the Euclidian norm of the ring and gantry angle. A preclinical version of RayStation v4.6 (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) was used to create patient specific wave arc trajectories for 31 patients with various anatomical tumor regions (prostate, oligometatstatic cases, centrally-located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer-LAPC). DWA was benchmarked against the current clinical approaches and coplanar VMAT. Each plan was evaluated with regards to dose distribution, modulation complexity (MCS), monitor units and treatment time efficiency. The delivery accuracy was evaluated using a 2D diode array that takes in consideration the multi-dimensionality of DWA during dose reconstruction. In centrally-located NSCLC cases, DWA improved the low dose spillage with 20 %, while the target coverage was increased with 17 % compared to 3D CRT. The structures that significantly benefited from using DWA were proximal bronchus and esophagus, with the maximal dose being reduced by 17 % and 24 %, respectively. For prostate and LAPC, neither technique seemed clearly superior to the other; however, DWA reduced with more than 65 % of the delivery time over IMRT. A steeper dose gradient outside the target was observed for all treatment sites (p < 0.01) with DWA. Except the oligometastatic cases, where the DWA-MCSs indicate a higher modulation, both DWA and VMAT modalities provide plans of similar complexity. The average ɣ (3 % /3 mm) passing rate for DWA plans was 99.2 ± 1 % (range from 96.8 to 100 %). DWA proven to be a fully functional treatment technique, allowing additional flexibility in dose shaping, while preserving dosimetrically robust delivery and treatment times comparable with coplanar VMAT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 4%
France 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 52%
Physics and Astronomy 8 16%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2016.
All research outputs
of 18,527,307 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
of 1,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 271,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,527,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,775 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 271,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them