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: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
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
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objective: Shot-within-shot (SWS) optimization is a new planning technique that relies on various combinations of shot weighting and prescription isodose line (IDL) to reduce beam-on time. The method differs from other planning techniques that incorporate mixed collimation, multiple stereotactic coordinates, and traditionally low prescription IDLs (<60%). In this work, we evaluate the percentage of brain metastasis for which the method can be applied, the magnitude of the resultant time savings, and the possible tradeoffs in plan quality.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 75 patients treated for 241 metastatic lesions in the brain. For each lesion, the original planning metrics related to target coverage, conformity, gradient, and beam-on time were recorded. A subset of lesions were selected for replanning using the SWS technique based on size, shape, and proximity to critical structures. Two replans were done, a reference plan was prescribed at the 50% IDL, and an optimized plan was prescribed at an IDL typically >50%. Planning metrics were then compared among the original plan and the 2 replans.
Results: More than a third (39%) of the brain metastases were eligible for the SWS technique. For these lesions, the differences between the original plan and reference SWS plan were as follows: ΔV < 0.5 cc in 93% of cases, ΔV < 0.5 cc in 100% of cases, Δselectivity < 0.1 in 79% of cases. Negligible differences were seen between the 2 replans in terms of Δselectivity and ΔV; ΔGI < 5% in 99% of cases. After optimization, beam-on time was reduced by 25%-30% in approximately 40%-50% of eligible lesions when compared with the reference SWS plan (ΔT = 42%). In comparison with the original plan, beam-on time was reduced even further, ΔT > 50% in 20% of cases (ΔT = 70%).
Conclusions: This work demonstrates clinically that optimization using the shot-within-shot technique can reduce beam-on time without degrading treatment plan quality.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8010882 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.140 | DOI Listing |