Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal [verfasserIn] C Jomon Raphael [verfasserIn] K Mathew Varghese [verfasserIn] Paul Gopu [verfasserIn] S Sivakumar [verfasserIn] Minu Boban [verfasserIn] N Arunai Nambi Raj [verfasserIn] K Senthilnathan [verfasserIn] P Ramesh Babu [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Schlagwörter:	Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Medical Physics - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006, 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:42 ; year:2017 ; number:3 ; pages:171-180

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ03511049X

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ03511049X
003	DE-627
005	20230502073036.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ03511049X
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a R895-920
100	0		\|a Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations.
650		4	\|a Cone-beam computed tomography
650		4	\|a dose calculation
650		4	\|a fan-beam computed tomography
650		4	\|a quality assurance
653		0	\|a Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
700	0		\|a C Jomon Raphael \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a K Mathew Varghese \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Paul Gopu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a S Sivakumar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Minu Boban \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a N Arunai Nambi Raj \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a K Senthilnathan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a P Ramesh Babu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Medical Physics \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 \|g 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 \|w (DE-627)512663793 \|w (DE-600)2236898-X \|x 19983913 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:42 \|g year:2017 \|g number:3 \|g pages:171-180
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_101
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_138
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_187
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_250
912			\|a GBV_ILN_281
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_647
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 42 \|j 2017 \|e 3 \|h 171-180

Indexfelder

author_variant	v k vk c j r cjr k m v kmv p g pg s s ss m b mb n a n r nanr k s ks p r b prb
matchkey_str	article:19983913:2017----::tdovrainnoeacltoacrcbtenvoeemoptdoorpyn
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
callnumber-subject-code	R
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ03511049X (DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal verfasserin aut Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations. Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine C Jomon Raphael verfasserin aut K Mathew Varghese verfasserin aut Paul Gopu verfasserin aut S Sivakumar verfasserin aut Minu Boban verfasserin aut N Arunai Nambi Raj verfasserin aut K Senthilnathan verfasserin aut P Ramesh Babu verfasserin aut In Journal of Medical Physics Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 (DE-627)512663793 (DE-600)2236898-X 19983913 nnns volume:42 year:2017 number:3 pages:171-180 https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 kostenfrei http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 42 2017 3 171-180
spelling	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ03511049X (DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal verfasserin aut Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations. Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine C Jomon Raphael verfasserin aut K Mathew Varghese verfasserin aut Paul Gopu verfasserin aut S Sivakumar verfasserin aut Minu Boban verfasserin aut N Arunai Nambi Raj verfasserin aut K Senthilnathan verfasserin aut P Ramesh Babu verfasserin aut In Journal of Medical Physics Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 (DE-627)512663793 (DE-600)2236898-X 19983913 nnns volume:42 year:2017 number:3 pages:171-180 https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 kostenfrei http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 42 2017 3 171-180
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ03511049X (DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal verfasserin aut Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations. Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine C Jomon Raphael verfasserin aut K Mathew Varghese verfasserin aut Paul Gopu verfasserin aut S Sivakumar verfasserin aut Minu Boban verfasserin aut N Arunai Nambi Raj verfasserin aut K Senthilnathan verfasserin aut P Ramesh Babu verfasserin aut In Journal of Medical Physics Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 (DE-627)512663793 (DE-600)2236898-X 19983913 nnns volume:42 year:2017 number:3 pages:171-180 https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 kostenfrei http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 42 2017 3 171-180
allfieldsGer	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ03511049X (DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal verfasserin aut Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations. Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine C Jomon Raphael verfasserin aut K Mathew Varghese verfasserin aut Paul Gopu verfasserin aut S Sivakumar verfasserin aut Minu Boban verfasserin aut N Arunai Nambi Raj verfasserin aut K Senthilnathan verfasserin aut P Ramesh Babu verfasserin aut In Journal of Medical Physics Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 (DE-627)512663793 (DE-600)2236898-X 19983913 nnns volume:42 year:2017 number:3 pages:171-180 https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 kostenfrei http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 42 2017 3 171-180
allfieldsSound	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ03511049X (DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal verfasserin aut Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations. Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine C Jomon Raphael verfasserin aut K Mathew Varghese verfasserin aut Paul Gopu verfasserin aut S Sivakumar verfasserin aut Minu Boban verfasserin aut N Arunai Nambi Raj verfasserin aut K Senthilnathan verfasserin aut P Ramesh Babu verfasserin aut In Journal of Medical Physics Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 (DE-627)512663793 (DE-600)2236898-X 19983913 nnns volume:42 year:2017 number:3 pages:171-180 https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 kostenfrei http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 42 2017 3 171-180
language	English
source	In Journal of Medical Physics 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 volume:42 year:2017 number:3 pages:171-180
sourceStr	In Journal of Medical Physics 42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180 volume:42 year:2017 number:3 pages:171-180
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Medical Physics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal @@aut@@ C Jomon Raphael @@aut@@ K Mathew Varghese @@aut@@ Paul Gopu @@aut@@ S Sivakumar @@aut@@ Minu Boban @@aut@@ N Arunai Nambi Raj @@aut@@ K Senthilnathan @@aut@@ P Ramesh Babu @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	512663793
id	DOAJ03511049X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ03511049X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502073036.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ03511049X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R895-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cone-beam computed tomography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">dose calculation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fan-beam computed tomography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality assurance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C Jomon Raphael</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">K Mathew Varghese</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Gopu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">S Sivakumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Minu Boban</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">N Arunai Nambi Raj</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">K Senthilnathan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">P Ramesh Babu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Medical Physics</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)512663793</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2236898-X</subfield><subfield code="x">19983913</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:42</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:171-180</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">42</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">171-180</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal
spellingShingle	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal misc R895-920 misc Cone-beam computed tomography misc dose calculation misc fan-beam computed tomography misc quality assurance misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography
authorStr	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)512663793
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	R895-920
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	19983913
topic_title	R895-920 Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography Cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation fan-beam computed tomography quality assurance
topic	misc R895-920 misc Cone-beam computed tomography misc dose calculation misc fan-beam computed tomography misc quality assurance misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
topic_unstemmed	misc R895-920 misc Cone-beam computed tomography misc dose calculation misc fan-beam computed tomography misc quality assurance misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
topic_browse	misc R895-920 misc Cone-beam computed tomography misc dose calculation misc fan-beam computed tomography misc quality assurance misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Medical Physics
hierarchy_parent_id	512663793
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Medical Physics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)512663793 (DE-600)2236898-X
title	Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ03511049X (DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076
title_full	Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography
author_sort	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal
journal	Journal of Medical Physics
journalStr	Journal of Medical Physics
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	171
author_browse	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal C Jomon Raphael K Mathew Varghese Paul Gopu S Sivakumar Minu Boban N Arunai Nambi Raj K Senthilnathan P Ramesh Babu
container_volume	42
class	R895-920
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal
doi_str_mv	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kv cone-beam computed tomography and kv fan-beam computed tomography
callnumber	R895-920
title_auth	Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography
abstract	Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations.
abstractGer	Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations.
abstract_unstemmed	Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3
title_short	Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17 https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076 http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203 https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913
remote_bool	true
author2	C Jomon Raphael K Mathew Varghese Paul Gopu S Sivakumar Minu Boban N Arunai Nambi Raj K Senthilnathan P Ramesh Babu
author2Str	C Jomon Raphael K Mathew Varghese Paul Gopu S Sivakumar Minu Boban N Arunai Nambi Raj K Senthilnathan P Ramesh Babu
ppnlink	512663793
callnumber-subject	R - General Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17
callnumber-a	R895-920
up_date	2024-07-04T01:48:17.134Z
_version_	1803611219832078336
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ03511049X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502073036.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ03511049X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R895-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Venkatesan Kaliyaperumal</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are presently used for geometric verification for daily patient positioning. In this work, we have compared the images of CBCT with the images of conventional fan beam CT (FBCT) in terms of image quality and Hounsfield units (HUs). We also compared the dose calculated using CBCT with that of FBCT. Homogenous RW3 plates and Catphan phantom were scanned by FBCT and CBCT. In RW3 and Catphan phantom, percentage depth dose (PDD), profiles, isodose distributions (for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans), and calculated dose volume histograms were compared. The HU difference was within ± 20 HU (central region) and ± 30 HU (peripheral region) for homogeneous RW3 plates. In the Catphan phantom, the difference in HU was ± 20 HU in the central area and peripheral areas. The HU differences were within ± 30 HU for all HU ranges starting from −1000 to 990 in phantom and patient images. In treatment plans done with simple symmetric and asymmetric fields, dose difference (DD) between CBCT plan and FBCT plan was within 1.2% for both phantoms. In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans, for different target volumes, the difference was <2%. This feasibility study investigated HU variation and dose calculation accuracy between FBCT and CBCT based planning and has validated inverse planning algorithms with CBCT. In our study, we observed a larger deviation of HU values in the peripheral region compared to the central region. This is due to the ring artifact and scatter contribution which may prevent the use of CBCT as the primary imaging modality for radiotherapy treatment planning. The reconstruction algorithm needs to be modified further for improving the image quality and accuracy in HU values. However, our study with TG-119 and intensity modulated radiotherapy test targets shows that CBCT can be used for adaptive replanning as the recalculation of dose with the anisotropic analytical algorithm is in full accord with conventional planning CT except in the build-up regions. Patient images with CBCT have to be carefully analyzed for any artifacts before using them for such dose calculations.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cone-beam computed tomography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">dose calculation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fan-beam computed tomography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality assurance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C Jomon Raphael</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">K Mathew Varghese</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Gopu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">S Sivakumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Minu Boban</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">N Arunai Nambi Raj</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">K Senthilnathan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">P Ramesh Babu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Medical Physics</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">42(2017), 3, Seite 171-180</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)512663793</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2236898-X</subfield><subfield code="x">19983913</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:42</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:171-180</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_24_17</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/45b965ab29ff4cf4864c802f9d214076</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2017;volume=42;issue=3;spage=171;epage=180;aulast=Kaliyaperumal</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0971-6203</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3913</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">42</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">171-180</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.397312

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Study of variation in dose calculation accuracy between kV cone-beam computed tomography and kV fan-Beam computed tomography

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?