0 522

Cited 0 times in

Dosimetric Comparison of Four Commercial Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Devices for Helical Tomotherapy

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author김동욱-
dc.contributor.author김용배-
dc.contributor.author김지훈-
dc.contributor.author김진성-
dc.contributor.author박광우-
dc.contributor.author이호-
dc.contributor.author장경환-
dc.contributor.author조재호-
dc.contributor.author한민철-
dc.contributor.author홍채선-
dc.contributor.author신한백-
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-17T00:24:32Z-
dc.date.available2020-06-17T00:24:32Z-
dc.date.issued2020-02-
dc.identifier.issn0374-4884-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/175953-
dc.description.abstractIn this study, the delivery quality assurance (DQA) results of commercially available dosimetric systems (ionization chamber and EBT film, MapCHECK, ArcCHECK, and dosimetry check (DC) software) for helical tomotherapy (HT) were compared, and the feasibility of performing pretreatment using MapCHECK, ArcCHECK, and DC for HT, instead of ionization chambers and EBT films, was assessed. Sixty-five HT-treated patients were considered. Point dose differences, dose profiles, and gamma passing rates were used to evaluate the agreement between the calculated and the measured data, and the outcomes of the four DQA devices were compared in various clinical cases. The calculated and the measured point doses were within ±5% of each other. In terms of the root-mean-square error (RMSE), the point dose differences were within 2.9 for the four tested devices in all of the studied cases. Gamma analysis was performed based on the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm passing rate criteria. In terms of the average RMSE, the gamma passing rates of the four tested DQA devices were within 2.85 (3%/3 mm) and 7.30 (2%/2 mm). These DQA systems could be used interchangeably for routine DQA pretreatment in HT cases.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherKorean Physical Society-
dc.relation.isPartOfJOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.titleDosimetric Comparison of Four Commercial Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Devices for Helical Tomotherapy-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiation Oncology (방사선종양학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKyung Hwan Chang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDong Wook Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJung Hoan Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHan-Back Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChae-Seon Hong-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDong Min Jung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJoo Ho Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJihun Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMincheol Han-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHo Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKwangwoo Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJin Sung Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJaeho Cho-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYong Bae Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJoo Ah Lee-
dc.identifier.doi10.3938/jkps.76.257-
dc.contributor.localIdA05710-
dc.contributor.localIdA00744-
dc.contributor.localIdA05823-
dc.contributor.localIdA04548-
dc.contributor.localIdA01432-
dc.contributor.localIdA03323-
dc.contributor.localIdA05840-
dc.contributor.localIdA03901-
dc.contributor.localIdA05870-
dc.contributor.localIdA05846-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ02927-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.3938/jkps.76.257-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Dong Wook-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김동욱-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김용배-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김지훈-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김진성-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor박광우-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor이호-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor장경환-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor조재호-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor한민철-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor홍채선-
dc.citation.volume76-
dc.citation.number3-
dc.citation.startPage257-
dc.citation.endPage263-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, Vol.76(3) : 257-263, 2020-02-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiation Oncology (방사선종양학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.