File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.03.004
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-1942446144
- PMID: 15110454
- WOS: WOS:000221371300011
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Target dose conformity in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy
Title | Target dose conformity in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | 3-D conformal radiotherapy Conformity index Intensity modulated radiotherapy |
Issue Date | 2004 |
Publisher | Elsevier Ireland Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/radonc |
Citation | Radiotherapy And Oncology, 2004, v. 71 n. 2, p. 201-206 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background and purpose Dose conformity to the planning target volume is an important criterion in radiotherapy treatment planning, for which the conformity index is a useful assessment tool. The purpose of this study is to compare the differences in CI for the treatment planning of four cancers including the nasopharynx, oesophagus, lung and prostate. Patients and methods Seventy patients with cancers of nasopharynx (30), oesophagus (15), lung (15) and prostate (10) were recruited. Each of these patients was planned with three sets of treatment plans using the FOCUS treatment planning system: the forward and inverse 3DCRT plans and the IMRT plan. The CI was generated for each treatment plan. The mean CI from each cancer patient group was calculated and compared with the other three cancer groups. The mean value of CI was also compared among the three planning methods. Results The oesophageal and lung cancers demonstrated relatively higher overall mean CI values (0.64 and 0.62, respectively), whereas that of the nasopharynx and prostate were lower (0.54 and 0.50, respectively). With regards to the planning method groups, the IMRT plans produced the highest overall mean CI (0.62), while those for the forward and inverse 3DCRT were similar (0.57 and 0.55, respectively). Conclusion For the four selected cancers, oesophageal and lung cancers were easier to conform than the nasopharyngeal and prostate cancers. The IMRT plans were more effective in achieving better dose conformity than that of the 3DCRT. © 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/150791 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.702 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Wu, VWC | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kwong, DLW | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Sham, JST | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-06-26T06:10:33Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-06-26T06:10:33Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2004 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Radiotherapy And Oncology, 2004, v. 71 n. 2, p. 201-206 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0167-8140 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/150791 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background and purpose Dose conformity to the planning target volume is an important criterion in radiotherapy treatment planning, for which the conformity index is a useful assessment tool. The purpose of this study is to compare the differences in CI for the treatment planning of four cancers including the nasopharynx, oesophagus, lung and prostate. Patients and methods Seventy patients with cancers of nasopharynx (30), oesophagus (15), lung (15) and prostate (10) were recruited. Each of these patients was planned with three sets of treatment plans using the FOCUS treatment planning system: the forward and inverse 3DCRT plans and the IMRT plan. The CI was generated for each treatment plan. The mean CI from each cancer patient group was calculated and compared with the other three cancer groups. The mean value of CI was also compared among the three planning methods. Results The oesophageal and lung cancers demonstrated relatively higher overall mean CI values (0.64 and 0.62, respectively), whereas that of the nasopharynx and prostate were lower (0.54 and 0.50, respectively). With regards to the planning method groups, the IMRT plans produced the highest overall mean CI (0.62), while those for the forward and inverse 3DCRT were similar (0.57 and 0.55, respectively). Conclusion For the four selected cancers, oesophageal and lung cancers were easier to conform than the nasopharyngeal and prostate cancers. The IMRT plans were more effective in achieving better dose conformity than that of the 3DCRT. © 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. | en_US |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Elsevier Ireland Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/radonc | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Radiotherapy and Oncology | en_US |
dc.subject | 3-D conformal radiotherapy | - |
dc.subject | Conformity index | - |
dc.subject | Intensity modulated radiotherapy | - |
dc.subject.mesh | Cohort Studies | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Esophageal Neoplasms - Radiography - Radiotherapy | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Female | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Lung Neoplasms - Radiography - Radiotherapy | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Male | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - Radiography - Radiotherapy | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Prognosis | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Prostatic Neoplasms - Radiography - Radiotherapy | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Radiation Injuries - Prevention & Control | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Radiation Tolerance | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Radiotherapy Dosage | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Radiotherapy, Conformal - Adverse Effects - Methods | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Sensitivity And Specificity | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Tomography, X-Ray Computed | en_US |
dc.title | Target dose conformity in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Kwong, DLW:dlwkwong@hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.authority | Kwong, DLW=rp00414 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.03.004 | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 15110454 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-1942446144 | en_US |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 88693 | - |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-1942446144&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 71 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | en_US |
dc.identifier.spage | 201 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 206 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000221371300011 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Ireland | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Wu, VWC=7006045803 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Kwong, DLW=15744231600 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Sham, JST=24472255400 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0167-8140 | - |