The Future of Friendship

Method: The hypothesis was tested by calculating the angle between the dose axis and γ vector of clinical treatment plans. Was a function of the rate of dose distribution assessed and the ratio (α) of the dose difference against the agreement criteria (DBA). Distributions of the prostate, head and neck, as well as lung treatment plans, were studied: 50 treatment plans were selected for each site of the prostate and head and 27 treatment plans were selected for the lungs. Histograms of dose gradients were established for each treatment program using α 1%/mm (z.B 3%, 3 mm dose difference or DTA criteria). To determine how often different α values were used in publications, documents referring to the original γ paper were analyzed to determine the dose difference and DBA criteria used in these publications. The relationship between α and α was established for values calculated for other α values of α – 1% /mm to -. Purpose: to determine the validity of the hypothesis that the Γ dose comparison tool, under clinically relevant abrupt dose gradients and γ test criteria, falls within distance from the test of the agreement. In conclusion: in most published cases, values of α ≥ 1%/mm were used, and for those for which it was implicitly considered that the γ dose comparison tool in the regions of steep gradients falls by default to the DTA test. There have been a few cases where α was small enough to invalidate this hypothesis. When selecting the test criteria γ, testers must ensure that the test γ in the most abrupt cases evaluated is preferably suitable for the DTA test. hii; I want to calculate the DTA setting; There`s a Matlab code??? If I don`t have access to one of the business tools, what is good software for calculating DTA? (I could write mine, but I should first ask the character.) Also, I looked in the rest of the reading and I saw methods, but no links with the implementations.

It`s a great contribution. This article is really very interesting and effective. I think it`s got to help us. Thanks for sharing your great informative medical journals blog on comparing dose distributions, the effort I have is one of the challenges in implementing gamma computing is that the difference between the points measured in dose distributions is often large (Imatrixx Evaluation IBA Dosimetrie- separation between two chambers is 7.62mm) compared to the expected dose distribution. This leads to artifacts in calculating the gamma dose in regions with steep dose gradients, you can please explain how to reduce artifacts… I plan to write a few articles on DVH, including differential DVH (my favorite DVH). Results: For most critical targets and structures, the maximum value of 90 degrees came close, so the assumption that the γ tool was set by default to the DTA test was correct. Most published documents using the γ tool used the dose difference and DtA criteria of 3%, 3 mm. For most of the other evaluations, criteria were used, α ≥ 1%/mm, so that conclusions regarding the distributions of analyzed doses were applied. There were a few documents using very small α values (including one that α 0.17%/mm) and which broke the assumption that the dose comparison tool γ returning to the DTA tool in steep gradients. Note: Only a member of this blog can post a comment.

Hello Forrest or physical hca have you found a software package for calculating DTA? Thanks to Ileana Maybe, if you feel inspired, you can also tackle the DVH analysis. In my opinion, this will be the natural progression of the IMRT QA and inserted the biological relevance to which I alluded in a previous comment:-).

Comments are closed.