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: 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

Development and clinical application of a probabilistic robustness evaluation tool for pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: to implement a probabilistic-Robustness-Evaluation (pRE) tool for proton therapy treatments and to correlate these results with the worst-case approach (wRE) implemented in commercial TPS for clinical applications.

Materials And Methods: 12 skull base patients were planned with a robust multiple field optimization (MFO) approach. 10 years of machine QA were analysed to derive the uncertainties of our treatment system (beam delivery and patient positioning system). For a large cohort of patients, post-treatment imaging was acquired to determine the intra-fraction uncertainty. The pRE, considered explicitly all these uncertainties, the fractionation and range uncertainty. For each plan a wRE with different combinations of range and setup uncertainties was simulated. wRE results were then compared, in terms of target coverage and OAR dose limits, with pRE results.

Results: 43,400 dose distributions were analysed. pRE simulations lasted 18.6 h (±11.5 h). The results showed that the combination of wRE uncertainty parameters that surrogated the best pRE results with a confidence level of 95 % were (1.0 mm/3.5 %). The median OAR's dose indexes difference (D/D) between pRE and wRE was 1.90 (±1.49) GyRBE, while for target D and D it was -0.66(±0.95) and -0.67 (±0.52) GyRBE, respectively.

Conclusion: A tool able to explicitly simulate the source of treatment uncertainties and the effect of the fractionation was implemented to have a more realistic evaluation of plan robustness. This tool was used to find the best wRE parameters that surrogate the pRE results while maintaining clinically acceptable timing. These results are now used in our clinical workflow.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104938DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

proton therapy
8
therapy treatments
8
uncertainties fractionation
8
pre
7
wre
6
development clinical
4
clinical application
4
application probabilistic
4
probabilistic robustness
4
robustness evaluation
4

Similar Publications