Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm

The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accel...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2007-05, Vol.8 (2), p.76-92
Hauptverfasser: Breitman, Karen, Rathee, Satyapal, Newcomb, Chris, Murray, Brad, Robinson, Don, Field, Colin, Warkentin, Heather, Connors, Sherry, MacKenzie, Marc, Dunscombe, Peter, Fallone, Gino
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 92
container_issue 2
container_start_page 76
container_title Journal of applied clinical medical physics
container_volume 8
creator Breitman, Karen
Rathee, Satyapal
Newcomb, Chris
Murray, Brad
Robinson, Don
Field, Colin
Warkentin, Heather
Connors, Sherry
MacKenzie, Marc
Dunscombe, Peter
Fallone, Gino
description The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA. At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.” For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided. PACS number: 87.53.Dq
doi_str_mv 10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5722411</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2290267185</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5316-f324886c1deacc6d37930456b052913feed042a538396afc4806713750406b993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1PwjAYhxujEUTP3swSz4N-r72YLAQ_EowXPTel66Bko7MbKP-9RYjiydPb5H36e395ALhGcIgQhqOlNnUz3AiHh5gweAL6iGGeSono6dG7By7adgkhQoKIc9BDGZOYsqwP6OSzscHVdtXpKtnoyhW6c36V-DLpFjaZmMo1rU3yPE90NffBdYv6EpyVumrt1WEOwNv95HX8mE5fHp7G-TQ1jCCelgRTIbhBhdXG8IJkkkDK-AwyLBEprS0gxZoRQSTXpaEC8gyRjEEK-UxKMgB3-9xmPattYWLJoCvVxL46bJXXTv3drNxCzf1GsQxjilAMuD0EBP--tm2nln4dVrGzwlhCHM8JFqnRnjLBt22w5c8FBNVOs_rWrHaa1U5z_HFzXOyXP3iNANsDH66y2__yVD5-xhBmnHwBhg6JwQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2290267185</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Breitman, Karen ; Rathee, Satyapal ; Newcomb, Chris ; Murray, Brad ; Robinson, Don ; Field, Colin ; Warkentin, Heather ; Connors, Sherry ; MacKenzie, Marc ; Dunscombe, Peter ; Fallone, Gino</creator><creatorcontrib>Breitman, Karen ; Rathee, Satyapal ; Newcomb, Chris ; Murray, Brad ; Robinson, Don ; Field, Colin ; Warkentin, Heather ; Connors, Sherry ; MacKenzie, Marc ; Dunscombe, Peter ; Fallone, Gino</creatorcontrib><description>The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA. At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.” For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided. PACS number: 87.53.Dq</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17592457</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>AAA ; Algorithms ; Body Burden ; Cancer ; Computer Simulation ; dosimetric evaluation ; Dosimetry ; Health physics ; Humans ; Models, Biological ; Particle Accelerators ; Photons - therapeutic use ; photon‐beam dose calculation ; Physics ; Quality control ; Radiation Oncology Physics ; Radiometry - methods ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Relative Biological Effectiveness ; Scattering, Radiation ; TG‐53 criteria</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2007-05, Vol.8 (2), p.76-92</ispartof><rights>2007 The Authors.</rights><rights>2007. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (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-c5316-f324886c1deacc6d37930456b052913feed042a538396afc4806713750406b993</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5316-f324886c1deacc6d37930456b052913feed042a538396afc4806713750406b993</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/PMC5722411/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722411/$$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/17592457$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Breitman, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathee, Satyapal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newcomb, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Brad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Don</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Field, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warkentin, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connors, Sherry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacKenzie, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunscombe, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallone, Gino</creatorcontrib><title>Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA. At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.” For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided. PACS number: 87.53.Dq</description><subject>AAA</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Body Burden</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>dosimetric evaluation</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Health physics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Particle Accelerators</subject><subject>Photons - therapeutic use</subject><subject>photon‐beam dose calculation</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Radiation Oncology Physics</subject><subject>Radiometry - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Relative Biological Effectiveness</subject><subject>Scattering, Radiation</subject><subject>TG‐53 criteria</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</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>eNqFkM1PwjAYhxujEUTP3swSz4N-r72YLAQ_EowXPTel66Bko7MbKP-9RYjiydPb5H36e395ALhGcIgQhqOlNnUz3AiHh5gweAL6iGGeSono6dG7By7adgkhQoKIc9BDGZOYsqwP6OSzscHVdtXpKtnoyhW6c36V-DLpFjaZmMo1rU3yPE90NffBdYv6EpyVumrt1WEOwNv95HX8mE5fHp7G-TQ1jCCelgRTIbhBhdXG8IJkkkDK-AwyLBEprS0gxZoRQSTXpaEC8gyRjEEK-UxKMgB3-9xmPattYWLJoCvVxL46bJXXTv3drNxCzf1GsQxjilAMuD0EBP--tm2nln4dVrGzwlhCHM8JFqnRnjLBt22w5c8FBNVOs_rWrHaa1U5z_HFzXOyXP3iNANsDH66y2__yVD5-xhBmnHwBhg6JwQ</recordid><startdate>20070510</startdate><enddate>20070510</enddate><creator>Breitman, Karen</creator><creator>Rathee, Satyapal</creator><creator>Newcomb, Chris</creator><creator>Murray, Brad</creator><creator>Robinson, Don</creator><creator>Field, Colin</creator><creator>Warkentin, Heather</creator><creator>Connors, Sherry</creator><creator>MacKenzie, Marc</creator><creator>Dunscombe, Peter</creator><creator>Fallone, Gino</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>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070510</creationdate><title>Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm</title><author>Breitman, Karen ; Rathee, Satyapal ; Newcomb, Chris ; Murray, Brad ; Robinson, Don ; Field, Colin ; Warkentin, Heather ; Connors, Sherry ; MacKenzie, Marc ; Dunscombe, Peter ; Fallone, Gino</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5316-f324886c1deacc6d37930456b052913feed042a538396afc4806713750406b993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>AAA</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Body Burden</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>dosimetric evaluation</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Health physics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Particle Accelerators</topic><topic>Photons - therapeutic use</topic><topic>photon‐beam dose calculation</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Radiation Oncology Physics</topic><topic>Radiometry - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Relative Biological Effectiveness</topic><topic>Scattering, Radiation</topic><topic>TG‐53 criteria</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Breitman, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathee, Satyapal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newcomb, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Brad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Don</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Field, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warkentin, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connors, Sherry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacKenzie, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunscombe, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallone, Gino</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>Publicly Available Content Database</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>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>Breitman, Karen</au><au>Rathee, Satyapal</au><au>Newcomb, Chris</au><au>Murray, Brad</au><au>Robinson, Don</au><au>Field, Colin</au><au>Warkentin, Heather</au><au>Connors, Sherry</au><au>MacKenzie, Marc</au><au>Dunscombe, Peter</au><au>Fallone, Gino</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2007-05-10</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>76</spage><epage>92</epage><pages>76-92</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA. At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.” For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided. PACS number: 87.53.Dq</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>17592457</pmid><doi>10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1526-9914
ispartof Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2007-05, Vol.8 (2), p.76-92
issn 1526-9914
1526-9914
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5722411
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Online Library Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects AAA
Algorithms
Body Burden
Cancer
Computer Simulation
dosimetric evaluation
Dosimetry
Health physics
Humans
Models, Biological
Particle Accelerators
Photons - therapeutic use
photon‐beam dose calculation
Physics
Quality control
Radiation Oncology Physics
Radiometry - methods
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods
Relative Biological Effectiveness
Scattering, Radiation
TG‐53 criteria
title Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T00%3A59%3A43IST&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=Experimental%20validation%20of%20the%20Eclipse%20AAA%20algorithm&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Breitman,%20Karen&rft.date=2007-05-10&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=76&rft.epage=92&rft.pages=76-92&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2290267185%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=2290267185&rft_id=info:pmid/17592457&rfr_iscdi=true