Individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA

Although gamma analysis is still a widely accepted quantitative tool to analyze and report patient‐specific QA for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the correlation between the 2D percentage gamma passing rate (%GP), and the clinical dosimetric diff...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2017-05, Vol.18 (3), p.28-36
Hauptverfasser: Yi, Jinling, Han, Ce, Zheng, Xiaomin, Zhou, Yongqiang, Deng, Zhenxiang, Xie, Congying, Jin, Xiance, Jin, Fu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 36
container_issue 3
container_start_page 28
container_title Journal of applied clinical medical physics
container_volume 18
creator Yi, Jinling
Han, Ce
Zheng, Xiaomin
Zhou, Yongqiang
Deng, Zhenxiang
Xie, Congying
Jin, Xiance
Jin, Fu
description Although gamma analysis is still a widely accepted quantitative tool to analyze and report patient‐specific QA for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the correlation between the 2D percentage gamma passing rate (%GP), and the clinical dosimetric difference for IMRT and VMAT has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA. Percentage dosimetric errors (%DE) of dose‐volume histogram metrics (includes target volumes and organ at risks) between the treatment planning system and QA‐reconstructed dose distribution, %GPs for individual volume and global gamma indices, as well their correlations and sensitivities were investigated for one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans. The %GPs of individual volumes had a higher percent of correlation with individual 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GPs. For two‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 9, 12, and 9 out of 15 %DE metrics, while global %GPs were correlated with only 2 out of 15 %DE metrics, respectively. For one‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 18, 16, and 13 out of 23 %DE metrics, and global %GPs were correlated with 19, 12, and 1 out 23 %DE metrics, respectively. The area under curves (AUC) of individual volume %GPs were higher than those of global %GPs for two‐arc VMAT plans, but with mixed results for one‐arc VMAT plans. In a conclusion, the idea of individual volume %GP was created and investigated to better serve for VMAT QA and individual volume‐based %GP had a higher percent of correlation with DVH 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GP for both one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/acm2.12062
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5689866</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2290063764</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-22aca1296edf2e0e6035dd1ab4279d632f2d2a574ec812be2394f962f4a930463</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctKAzEUhoMoVqsbH0AG3IhQzTmZZiYbodRbwSKCug3p5IxOmUtNOhV3PoLP6JM4tVWqC1c5kI-P_5yfsT3gx8A5npikwGNALnGNbUEXZUcpCNdX5hbb9n7MOUAs4k3WwlhADBy2WH9Q2myW2drkwazK64I-3t5HxpMNxFnwaIrCBFmDJOSDtHLBxNHUkZkWVE6Dh2HvLrjt7bCN1OSedpdvm91fnN_1rzrXN5eDfu-6k4SRxA6iSQygkmRTJE6Si661YEYhRspKgSlaNN0opCQGHBEKFaZKYhoaJXgoRZudLryTelSQTZoIzuR64rLCuFddmUz__imzJ_1YzXRXxiqWc8HhUuCq55r8VBeZTyjPTUlV7TXEkYLmXM2V2uzgDzqualc262lExbkUkQwb6mhBJa7y3lH6Ewa4nnej593or24aeH81_g_6XUYDwAJ4yXJ6_Uele_0hLqSfz7WYNA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2290063764</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Yi, Jinling ; Han, Ce ; Zheng, Xiaomin ; Zhou, Yongqiang ; Deng, Zhenxiang ; Xie, Congying ; Jin, Xiance ; Jin, Fu</creator><creatorcontrib>Yi, Jinling ; Han, Ce ; Zheng, Xiaomin ; Zhou, Yongqiang ; Deng, Zhenxiang ; Xie, Congying ; Jin, Xiance ; Jin, Fu</creatorcontrib><description>Although gamma analysis is still a widely accepted quantitative tool to analyze and report patient‐specific QA for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the correlation between the 2D percentage gamma passing rate (%GP), and the clinical dosimetric difference for IMRT and VMAT has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA. Percentage dosimetric errors (%DE) of dose‐volume histogram metrics (includes target volumes and organ at risks) between the treatment planning system and QA‐reconstructed dose distribution, %GPs for individual volume and global gamma indices, as well their correlations and sensitivities were investigated for one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans. The %GPs of individual volumes had a higher percent of correlation with individual 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GPs. For two‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 9, 12, and 9 out of 15 %DE metrics, while global %GPs were correlated with only 2 out of 15 %DE metrics, respectively. For one‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 18, 16, and 13 out of 23 %DE metrics, and global %GPs were correlated with 19, 12, and 1 out 23 %DE metrics, respectively. The area under curves (AUC) of individual volume %GPs were higher than those of global %GPs for two‐arc VMAT plans, but with mixed results for one‐arc VMAT plans. In a conclusion, the idea of individual volume %GP was created and investigated to better serve for VMAT QA and individual volume‐based %GP had a higher percent of correlation with DVH 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GP for both one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12062</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28318101</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Cancer therapies ; Dosimetry ; Feasibility Studies ; Gamma Rays ; Humans ; Optimization ; Organs at Risk ; Patients ; percentage dosimetric errors ; percentage gamma passing rate ; Planning ; Prostate cancer ; quality assurance ; Quality control ; Radiation Oncology Physics ; Radiometry ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Studies ; volumetric‐modulated arc therapy</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2017-05, Vol.18 (3), p.28-36</ispartof><rights>2017 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-22aca1296edf2e0e6035dd1ab4279d632f2d2a574ec812be2394f962f4a930463</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-22aca1296edf2e0e6035dd1ab4279d632f2d2a574ec812be2394f962f4a930463</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689866/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689866/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28318101$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yi, Jinling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Ce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Xiaomin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Yongqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Zhenxiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Congying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin, Xiance</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin, Fu</creatorcontrib><title>Individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>Although gamma analysis is still a widely accepted quantitative tool to analyze and report patient‐specific QA for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the correlation between the 2D percentage gamma passing rate (%GP), and the clinical dosimetric difference for IMRT and VMAT has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA. Percentage dosimetric errors (%DE) of dose‐volume histogram metrics (includes target volumes and organ at risks) between the treatment planning system and QA‐reconstructed dose distribution, %GPs for individual volume and global gamma indices, as well their correlations and sensitivities were investigated for one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans. The %GPs of individual volumes had a higher percent of correlation with individual 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GPs. For two‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 9, 12, and 9 out of 15 %DE metrics, while global %GPs were correlated with only 2 out of 15 %DE metrics, respectively. For one‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 18, 16, and 13 out of 23 %DE metrics, and global %GPs were correlated with 19, 12, and 1 out 23 %DE metrics, respectively. The area under curves (AUC) of individual volume %GPs were higher than those of global %GPs for two‐arc VMAT plans, but with mixed results for one‐arc VMAT plans. In a conclusion, the idea of individual volume %GP was created and investigated to better serve for VMAT QA and individual volume‐based %GP had a higher percent of correlation with DVH 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GP for both one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Gamma Rays</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Organs at Risk</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>percentage dosimetric errors</subject><subject>percentage gamma passing rate</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>quality assurance</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Radiation Oncology Physics</subject><subject>Radiometry</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>volumetric‐modulated arc therapy</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctKAzEUhoMoVqsbH0AG3IhQzTmZZiYbodRbwSKCug3p5IxOmUtNOhV3PoLP6JM4tVWqC1c5kI-P_5yfsT3gx8A5npikwGNALnGNbUEXZUcpCNdX5hbb9n7MOUAs4k3WwlhADBy2WH9Q2myW2drkwazK64I-3t5HxpMNxFnwaIrCBFmDJOSDtHLBxNHUkZkWVE6Dh2HvLrjt7bCN1OSedpdvm91fnN_1rzrXN5eDfu-6k4SRxA6iSQygkmRTJE6Si661YEYhRspKgSlaNN0opCQGHBEKFaZKYhoaJXgoRZudLryTelSQTZoIzuR64rLCuFddmUz__imzJ_1YzXRXxiqWc8HhUuCq55r8VBeZTyjPTUlV7TXEkYLmXM2V2uzgDzqualc262lExbkUkQwb6mhBJa7y3lH6Ewa4nnej593or24aeH81_g_6XUYDwAJ4yXJ6_Uele_0hLqSfz7WYNA</recordid><startdate>201705</startdate><enddate>201705</enddate><creator>Yi, Jinling</creator><creator>Han, Ce</creator><creator>Zheng, Xiaomin</creator><creator>Zhou, Yongqiang</creator><creator>Deng, Zhenxiang</creator><creator>Xie, Congying</creator><creator>Jin, Xiance</creator><creator>Jin, Fu</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201705</creationdate><title>Individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA</title><author>Yi, Jinling ; Han, Ce ; Zheng, Xiaomin ; Zhou, Yongqiang ; Deng, Zhenxiang ; Xie, Congying ; Jin, Xiance ; Jin, Fu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4762-22aca1296edf2e0e6035dd1ab4279d632f2d2a574ec812be2394f962f4a930463</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Gamma Rays</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Organs at Risk</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>percentage dosimetric errors</topic><topic>percentage gamma passing rate</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>quality assurance</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Radiation Oncology Physics</topic><topic>Radiometry</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>volumetric‐modulated arc therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yi, Jinling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Ce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Xiaomin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Yongqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Zhenxiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Congying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin, Xiance</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin, Fu</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yi, Jinling</au><au>Han, Ce</au><au>Zheng, Xiaomin</au><au>Zhou, Yongqiang</au><au>Deng, Zhenxiang</au><au>Xie, Congying</au><au>Jin, Xiance</au><au>Jin, Fu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2017-05</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>28</spage><epage>36</epage><pages>28-36</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>Although gamma analysis is still a widely accepted quantitative tool to analyze and report patient‐specific QA for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the correlation between the 2D percentage gamma passing rate (%GP), and the clinical dosimetric difference for IMRT and VMAT has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA. Percentage dosimetric errors (%DE) of dose‐volume histogram metrics (includes target volumes and organ at risks) between the treatment planning system and QA‐reconstructed dose distribution, %GPs for individual volume and global gamma indices, as well their correlations and sensitivities were investigated for one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans. The %GPs of individual volumes had a higher percent of correlation with individual 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GPs. For two‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 9, 12, and 9 out of 15 %DE metrics, while global %GPs were correlated with only 2 out of 15 %DE metrics, respectively. For one‐arc VMAT at 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 4%/4 mm criteria, individual volume %GPs were correlated with 18, 16, and 13 out of 23 %DE metrics, and global %GPs were correlated with 19, 12, and 1 out 23 %DE metrics, respectively. The area under curves (AUC) of individual volume %GPs were higher than those of global %GPs for two‐arc VMAT plans, but with mixed results for one‐arc VMAT plans. In a conclusion, the idea of individual volume %GP was created and investigated to better serve for VMAT QA and individual volume‐based %GP had a higher percent of correlation with DVH 15 %DE metrics compared with global %GP for both one‐ and two‐arc VMAT plans.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>28318101</pmid><doi>10.1002/acm2.12062</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1526-9914
ispartof Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2017-05, Vol.18 (3), p.28-36
issn 1526-9914
1526-9914
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5689866
source MEDLINE; Wiley Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Algorithms
Cancer therapies
Dosimetry
Feasibility Studies
Gamma Rays
Humans
Optimization
Organs at Risk
Patients
percentage dosimetric errors
percentage gamma passing rate
Planning
Prostate cancer
quality assurance
Quality control
Radiation Oncology Physics
Radiometry
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
Studies
volumetric‐modulated arc therapy
title Individual volume‐based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T15%3A11%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Individual%20volume%E2%80%90based%203D%20gamma%20indices%20for%20pretreatment%20VMAT%20QA&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Yi,%20Jinling&rft.date=2017-05&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=28&rft.epage=36&rft.pages=28-36&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acm2.12062&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2290063764%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2290063764&rft_id=info:pmid/28318101&rfr_iscdi=true