Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy

Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Kim, Changhwan [verfasserIn] Han, Min Cheol Lee, Young Kyu Shin, Han-Back Kim, Hojin Kim, Jin Sung

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Helical tomotherapy Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance Exit detector

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Radiation oncology - London : BioMed Central, 2006, 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:17 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; day:07 ; month:11

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x

Katalog-ID:	SPR051112019

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR051112019
003	DE-627
005	20230509115437.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230508s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR051112019
035			\|a (SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Kim, Changhwan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2022
520			\|a Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method.
650		4	\|a Helical tomotherapy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Exit detector \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Han, Min Cheol \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Lee, Young Kyu \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Shin, Han-Back \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Kim, Hojin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Kim, Jin Sung \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Radiation oncology \|d London : BioMed Central, 2006 \|g 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. \|w (DE-627)508725739 \|w (DE-600)2224965-5 \|x 1748-717X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:17 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g day:07 \|g month:11
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
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_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_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
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_2108
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2119
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 17 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|b 07 \|c 11

Indexfelder

author_variant	c k ck m c h mc mch y k l yk ykl h b s hbs h k hk j s k js jsk
matchkey_str	article:1748717X:2022----::opeesvciiaeautootmeaoptetpcfcrtetetulta
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x doi (DE-627)SPR051112019 (SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kim, Changhwan verfasserin aut Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. Helical tomotherapy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exit detector (dpeaa)DE-He213 Han, Min Cheol aut Lee, Young Kyu aut Shin, Han-Back aut Kim, Hojin aut Kim, Jin Sung aut Enthalten in Radiation oncology London : BioMed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. (DE-627)508725739 (DE-600)2224965-5 1748-717X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:07 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 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_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 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 17 2022 1 07 11
spelling	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x doi (DE-627)SPR051112019 (SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kim, Changhwan verfasserin aut Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. Helical tomotherapy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exit detector (dpeaa)DE-He213 Han, Min Cheol aut Lee, Young Kyu aut Shin, Han-Back aut Kim, Hojin aut Kim, Jin Sung aut Enthalten in Radiation oncology London : BioMed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. (DE-627)508725739 (DE-600)2224965-5 1748-717X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:07 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 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_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 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 17 2022 1 07 11
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x doi (DE-627)SPR051112019 (SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kim, Changhwan verfasserin aut Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. Helical tomotherapy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exit detector (dpeaa)DE-He213 Han, Min Cheol aut Lee, Young Kyu aut Shin, Han-Back aut Kim, Hojin aut Kim, Jin Sung aut Enthalten in Radiation oncology London : BioMed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. (DE-627)508725739 (DE-600)2224965-5 1748-717X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:07 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 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_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 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 17 2022 1 07 11
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x doi (DE-627)SPR051112019 (SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kim, Changhwan verfasserin aut Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. Helical tomotherapy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exit detector (dpeaa)DE-He213 Han, Min Cheol aut Lee, Young Kyu aut Shin, Han-Back aut Kim, Hojin aut Kim, Jin Sung aut Enthalten in Radiation oncology London : BioMed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. (DE-627)508725739 (DE-600)2224965-5 1748-717X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:07 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 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_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 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 17 2022 1 07 11
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x doi (DE-627)SPR051112019 (SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kim, Changhwan verfasserin aut Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. Helical tomotherapy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exit detector (dpeaa)DE-He213 Han, Min Cheol aut Lee, Young Kyu aut Shin, Han-Back aut Kim, Hojin aut Kim, Jin Sung aut Enthalten in Radiation oncology London : BioMed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. (DE-627)508725739 (DE-600)2224965-5 1748-717X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:07 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 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_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 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 17 2022 1 07 11
language	English
source	Enthalten in Radiation oncology 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:07 month:11
sourceStr	Enthalten in Radiation oncology 17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov. volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:07 month:11
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Helical tomotherapy Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance Exit detector
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Radiation oncology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Kim, Changhwan @@aut@@ Han, Min Cheol @@aut@@ Lee, Young Kyu @@aut@@ Shin, Han-Back @@aut@@ Kim, Hojin @@aut@@ Kim, Jin Sung @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-11-07T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	508725739
id	SPR051112019
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">SPR051112019</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230509115437.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230508s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR051112019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e</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="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Changhwan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</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="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Helical tomotherapy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exit detector</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Han, Min Cheol</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, Young Kyu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shin, Han-Back</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Hojin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Jin Sung</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Radiation oncology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)508725739</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2224965-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1748-717X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:07</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</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_SPRINGER</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_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_95</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_151</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_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_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_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_2108</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_2119</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">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">07</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Kim, Changhwan
spellingShingle	Kim, Changhwan misc Helical tomotherapy misc Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance misc Exit detector Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy
authorStr	Kim, Changhwan
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)508725739
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1748-717X
topic_title	Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy Helical tomotherapy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exit detector (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Helical tomotherapy misc Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance misc Exit detector
topic_unstemmed	misc Helical tomotherapy misc Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance misc Exit detector
topic_browse	misc Helical tomotherapy misc Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance misc Exit detector
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Radiation oncology
hierarchy_parent_id	508725739
hierarchy_top_title	Radiation oncology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)508725739 (DE-600)2224965-5
title	Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR051112019 (SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e
title_full	Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy
author_sort	Kim, Changhwan
journal	Radiation oncology
journalStr	Radiation oncology
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Kim, Changhwan Han, Min Cheol Lee, Young Kyu Shin, Han-Back Kim, Hojin Kim, Jin Sung
container_volume	17
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Kim, Changhwan
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x
title_sort	comprehensive clinical evaluation of tomoeqa for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy
title_auth	Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy
abstract	Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. © The Author(s) 2022
abstractGer	Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. © The Author(s) 2022
abstract_unstemmed	Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method. © The Author(s) 2022
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 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_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 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	1
title_short	Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x
remote_bool	true
author2	Han, Min Cheol Lee, Young Kyu Shin, Han-Back Kim, Hojin Kim, Jin Sung
author2Str	Han, Min Cheol Lee, Young Kyu Shin, Han-Back Kim, Hojin Kim, Jin Sung
ppnlink	508725739
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x
up_date	2024-07-03T19:51:16.445Z
_version_	1803588758653632512
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">SPR051112019</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230509115437.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230508s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR051112019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13014-022-02151-x-e</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="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Changhwan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</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="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted. Methods Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA. Results The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results. Conclusions TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Helical tomotherapy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exit detector</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Han, Min Cheol</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, Young Kyu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shin, Han-Back</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Hojin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Jin Sung</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Radiation oncology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2022), 1 vom: 07. Nov.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)508725739</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2224965-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1748-717X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:07</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02151-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</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_SPRINGER</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_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_95</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_151</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_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_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_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_2108</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_2119</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">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">07</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399699

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?