Suppr超能文献

评估和比较 Pinnacle 治疗计划系统与第二检查监测单位计算软件。

Evaluation and comparison of second-check monitor unit calculation software with Pinnacle treatment planning system.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio 78229, USA; Cancer Therapy and Research Center, 7979 Wurzbach Rd, 78229 San Antonio, USA.

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.

出版信息

Phys Med. 2018 Jan;45:186-191. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.12.004. Epub 2018 Jan 10.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of dose calculations in second check softwares (Diamond, IMSure, MuCheck, and RadCalc) against the Phillips Pinnacle treatment planning system. Eighteen previously treated patients' treatment planning files consisting of a total of 204 beams were exported from the Pinnacle TPS to each of the four second check software. Of these beams, 145 of the beams used were IMRT plans while 59 were VMAT arcs. The values were represented as a percent difference between primary and secondary calculations and used for statistical analysis. Box plots, Pearson Correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed in MedCalc. The mean percent difference in calculated dose for Diamond, IMSure, MuCheck, and RadCalc from Pinnacle were -0.67%, 0.31%, 1.51% and -0.36%, respectively. The corresponding variances were calculated to be 0.07%, 0.13%, 0.08%, and 0.03%; and the largest percent differences were -7.9%, 9.70%, 9.39%, and 5.45%. The dose differences of each of the second check software in this study can vary considerably and VMAT plans have larger differences than IMRT. Among the four second check softwares, RadCalc values has shown a high agreement on average with low variation, and had the smallest percent range from Pinnacle values. The closest in average percent difference from the Pinnacledata was the IMSure software, but suffered from significantly larger variance and percent range. The values reported by Diamond and MuCheck had significantly high percent differences with TPS values.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估和比较二次核对软件(Diamond、IMSure、MuCheck 和 RadCalc)与 Phillips Pinnacle 治疗计划系统在剂量计算中的准确性。从 Pinnacle TPS 导出了 18 名先前治疗过的患者的治疗计划文件,共计 204 束,这些文件被分别导入到四个二次核对软件中。这些束中,145 束是 IMRT 计划,59 束是 VMAT 弧。这些值表示为主计算和次计算之间的百分比差异,并用于统计分析。MedCalc 中进行了箱线图、Pearson 相关和 Bland-Altman 分析。Diamond、IMSure、MuCheck 和 RadCalc 从 Pinnacle 计算的剂量的平均百分比差异分别为-0.67%、0.31%、1.51%和-0.36%。相应的方差分别计算为 0.07%、0.13%、0.08%和 0.03%;最大的百分比差异分别为-7.9%、9.70%、9.39%和 5.45%。本研究中每个二次核对软件的剂量差异差异较大,VMAT 计划的差异大于 IMRT 计划。在这四个二次核对软件中,RadCalc 的值平均具有较高的一致性,变化较小,与 Pinnacle 的值差异最小。与 Pinnacle 数据的平均百分比差异最接近的是 IMSure 软件,但方差和百分比范围明显较大。Diamond 和 MuCheck 报告的值与 TPS 值的百分比差异显著较高。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验