clinical implementation of an electron monitor unit dosimetry system based on task group 71 report and a commercial calculation program
Clicks: 263
ID: 178361
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
263 views
40 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #12 of 28 articles by views in arya atherosclerosis
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Many clinics still use monitor unit (MU) calculations for electron treatment planning and/or quality assurance (QA). This work (1) investigates the clinical implementation of a dosimetry system including a modified American Association of Physicists in Medicine-task group-71 (TG-71)-based electron MU calculation protocol (modified TG-71 electron [mTG-71E] and an independent commercial calculation program and (2) provides the practice recommendations for clinical usage. Following the recently published TG-71 guidance, an organized mTG-71E databook was developed to facilitate data access and subsequent MU computation according to our clinical need. A recently released commercial secondary calculation program - Mobius3D (version 1.5.1) Electron Quick Calc (EQC) (Mobius Medical System, LP, Houston, TX, USA), with inherent pencil beam algorithm and independent beam data, was used to corroborate the calculation results. For various setups, the calculation consistency and accuracy of mTG-71E and EQC were validated by their cross-comparison and the ion chamber measurements in a solid water phantom. Our results show good agreement between mTG-71E and EQC calculations, with average 2% difference. Both mTG-71E and EQC calculations match with measurements within 3%. In general, these differences increase with decreased cutout size, increased extended source to surface distance, and lower energy. It is feasible to use TG71 and Mobius3D clinically as primary and secondary electron MU calculations or vice versa. We recommend a practice that only requires patient-specific measurements in rare cases when mTG-71E and EQC calculations differ by 5% or more.
| Reference Key |
xu2016journalclinical
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Huijun Xu;Mariana Guerrero;Shifeng Chen;Xiaocheng Yang;Karl Prado;Colleen Schinkel |
| Journal | arya atherosclerosis |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.4103/0971-6203.195184
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.