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

Optimization of Minimum Segment Width Parameter in the Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Plan for Esophageal Cancer. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: This study was designed to explore the optimal minimum segment width (MSW) in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan for esophageal cancer.

Patients And Methods: The imaging data of 20 esophageal cancer patients were selected for this study. Four IMRT plans were designed for each patient with MSWs of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 cm. The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) of the planning target volumes (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), control points (CP), monitor units (MU), plan delivery time (DT), and gamma passing rates (GPR) were collected and compared to appraise the treatment plan quality and delivery efficiency.

Results: Lower-MSW plans had larger CI and smaller HI values, and lower dose parameters of OARs and PTVs. The HI, CI, and dose parameter of OARs in the 0.5 and 1.0 cm MSW groups were similar and much better than those of the 1.5 and 2.0 cm MSW groups. Meanwhile, the plan in the 0.5 cm MSW group had significantly higher MUs, CPs, and DTs, and a significantly lower relative dose of GPR with a 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement criteria than the other three groups.

Conclusion: The 0.5 and 1 cm MSW groups had better dosimetric parameters and IMRT plan quality than the other groups. However, plans with 0.5 cm MSW had worse delivery accuracy and efficiency than the other three groups. Thus, MSW of 1.0 cm was the optimal choice to ensure good quality, delivery accuracy, and treatment efficiency in IMRT plans for esophageal cancer.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8687524PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S336269DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

esophageal cancer
12
msw groups
12
minimum segment
8
segment width
8
intensity-modulated radiotherapy
8
plan esophageal
8
imrt plan
8
imrt plans
8
plan quality
8
quality delivery
8

Similar Publications