A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of IPSA with dose-point optimization and manual optimization for interstitial template brachytherapy for gynecologic cancers. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: To compare inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA) algorithm with the dose-point optimized (DPO) plan and manual/graphically optimized (GrO) plan for interstitial template brachytherapy for gynecologic cancers.

Methods And Materials: The data set of 10 consecutive patients was selected for this dosimetric study. For each patient, three plans were calculated: DPO, GrO, and IPSA. Dose-volume parameters from the three plans were compared to analyze the dosimetric outcome.

Results: Coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV) with GrO plan and IPSA algorithm was significantly better (mean V(100) of 88.8% and 89.1%; p=0.006) as compared with DPO plan (83.7%; p=0.62). Similarly, mean D(90) was same in both GrO plan and IPSA, 3.96±0.23 and 3.96±0.15Gy, respectively. DPO plans were homogeneous with homogeneity index being 0.82 as compared with 0.68±0.05 of GrO plan and 0.71±0.04 of IPSA. However, IPSA resulted in high conformity with conformity index of 0.78 as compared with 0.72 (p=0.001) and 0.68 (p≤0.001) for GrO and DPO plans, respectively. The dose to rectum (3.3±1.06Gy) and bladder (3.17±0.5Gy) was generally high for DPO plan. GrO plan reduced the dose to the rectum (2.91±0.63; p=0.011) and bladder (2.89±0.63Gy; p=0.003) significantly. IPSA resulted in a further reduction of the dose to rectum (2.79±0.67Gy; p=0.046) and bladder (2.81±0.67Gy; p=0.035), however with no statistical significance as compared with GrO plan.

Conclusion: IPSA resulted in significant sparing of normal tissues without compromising CTV coverage as compared with DPO plan. However, IPSA did not show any significant improvement either in CTV coverage or in normal tissue sparing as compared with GrO plan. IPSA was found to be superior in terms of homogeneity and conformity as compared with GrO plan.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2010.08.011DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gro plan
28
dpo plan
16
plan ipsa
16
dose rectum
12
compared gro
12
plan
11
ipsa
10
gro
10
interstitial template
8
template brachytherapy
8

Similar Publications