Correlation of treatment time to target volume for GammaPod treatments: A simple second calculation
Purpose The GammaPod is a novel device for stereotactic breast treatments that employs 25 rotating Co‐60 sources while the patient is continuously translated in three axes to deliver a highly conformal dose to the target. There is no commercial software available for independent second calculations....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2022-04, Vol.23 (4), p.e13524-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | e13524 |
container_title | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
container_volume | 23 |
creator | Chen, Leah Becker, Stewart J. McAvoy, Sarah Anne Nichols, Elizabeth M. Guerrero, Mariana |
description | Purpose
The GammaPod is a novel device for stereotactic breast treatments that employs 25 rotating Co‐60 sources while the patient is continuously translated in three axes to deliver a highly conformal dose to the target. There is no commercial software available for independent second calculations. The purpose of this study is to determine an efficient way to estimate GammaPod treatment times based on target volume and use it as a second calculation for patient‐specific quality assurance.
Methods
Fifty‐nine GammaPod (Xcision Medical Systems, LLC.) breast cancer patient treatments were used as the fitting dataset for this study. Similar to the Curie‐seconds concept in brachytherapy, we considered dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) as a function of target volumes. Using a MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) script, we generated linear (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) and quadratic fits and tested the resulting equations on an additional set of 30 patients.
Results
We found a strong correlation between the dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) and patients’ target volumes for both the linear and quadratic models. The linear fit was selected for use and using the polyval function in MATLAB, a 95% CI graph was created to depict the accuracy of the prediction for treatment times. Testing the model on 30 additional patients with target volumes ranging from 20 to 188 cc yielded treatment times from 10 to 25 min that in all cases were within the predicted CI. The average absolute difference between the predicted and actual treatment times was 1.0 min (range 0–3.3 min). The average percent difference was 5.8% (range 0%–18.4%).
Conclusion
This work has resulted in a viable independent calculation for GammaPod treatment times. This method has been implemented as a spreadsheet that is ready for clinical use to predict and verify the accuracy of breast cancer treatment times. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/acm2.13524 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8992953</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A755329553</galeid><sourcerecordid>A755329553</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4744-1bac6b60c40f7f0312c79980b1bcc09efdc13a640f124db95bb2636aa50c80c63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYmxsbW68QMYEjfG5L3yZ2AGF01eXrSatNGFrglzB540w_AEpqbfXtqptXZhWEAuP849l4PQK0rWlBB2YiCwNeWCNU_QERVMrpSizdMH50P0POdLQijtePcMHXJBOWtbeoRgG1Oyoyk-Tjg6XJI1Jdip4OKDxSXiYtLOFnwVx7kWXEz4zIRgvsbhL5zf4w3OPuxHi7OFOA0YzAjzovsCHTgzZvvybj9G3z9--Lb9tDr_cvZ5uzlfQdM2zYr2BmQvCTTEtY5wyqBVqiM97QGIsm4Ayo2st5Q1Q69E3zPJpTGCQEdA8mN0uuju5z7YAaqxZEa9Tz6YdK2j8frfm8n_0Lt4pTulmBK8Cry9E0jx52xz0cFnsONoJhvnrJlkslNMClLRN4_QyzinqY5XqaajdSLSVWq9UDszWu0nF2tfqGuwwddvss7X-qYVglcDtw7eLQ8gxZyTdffuKdE3YeubsPVt2BV-_XDee_RPuhWgC_Crtrn-j5TebC_YIvobp_O0ww</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2648147408</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Correlation of treatment time to target volume for GammaPod treatments: A simple second calculation</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Chen, Leah ; Becker, Stewart J. ; McAvoy, Sarah Anne ; Nichols, Elizabeth M. ; Guerrero, Mariana</creator><creatorcontrib>Chen, Leah ; Becker, Stewart J. ; McAvoy, Sarah Anne ; Nichols, Elizabeth M. ; Guerrero, Mariana</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The GammaPod is a novel device for stereotactic breast treatments that employs 25 rotating Co‐60 sources while the patient is continuously translated in three axes to deliver a highly conformal dose to the target. There is no commercial software available for independent second calculations. The purpose of this study is to determine an efficient way to estimate GammaPod treatment times based on target volume and use it as a second calculation for patient‐specific quality assurance.
Methods
Fifty‐nine GammaPod (Xcision Medical Systems, LLC.) breast cancer patient treatments were used as the fitting dataset for this study. Similar to the Curie‐seconds concept in brachytherapy, we considered dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) as a function of target volumes. Using a MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) script, we generated linear (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) and quadratic fits and tested the resulting equations on an additional set of 30 patients.
Results
We found a strong correlation between the dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) and patients’ target volumes for both the linear and quadratic models. The linear fit was selected for use and using the polyval function in MATLAB, a 95% CI graph was created to depict the accuracy of the prediction for treatment times. Testing the model on 30 additional patients with target volumes ranging from 20 to 188 cc yielded treatment times from 10 to 25 min that in all cases were within the predicted CI. The average absolute difference between the predicted and actual treatment times was 1.0 min (range 0–3.3 min). The average percent difference was 5.8% (range 0%–18.4%).
Conclusion
This work has resulted in a viable independent calculation for GammaPod treatment times. This method has been implemented as a spreadsheet that is ready for clinical use to predict and verify the accuracy of breast cancer treatment times.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13524</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35132771</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Brachytherapy - methods ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Cancer ; Cancer therapies ; Care and treatment ; Confidence intervals ; Female ; GammaPod ; Humans ; Lumpectomy ; Medical equipment ; Patients ; Physiological apparatus ; Radiation ; Radiosurgery - methods ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; second calculation ; Technical Note ; Technical Notes</subject><ispartof>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2022-04, Vol.23 (4), p.e13524-n/a</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>2022. 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><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4744-1bac6b60c40f7f0312c79980b1bcc09efdc13a640f124db95bb2636aa50c80c63</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/PMC8992953/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992953/$$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/35132771$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chen, Leah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Stewart J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAvoy, Sarah Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guerrero, Mariana</creatorcontrib><title>Correlation of treatment time to target volume for GammaPod treatments: A simple second calculation</title><title>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose
The GammaPod is a novel device for stereotactic breast treatments that employs 25 rotating Co‐60 sources while the patient is continuously translated in three axes to deliver a highly conformal dose to the target. There is no commercial software available for independent second calculations. The purpose of this study is to determine an efficient way to estimate GammaPod treatment times based on target volume and use it as a second calculation for patient‐specific quality assurance.
Methods
Fifty‐nine GammaPod (Xcision Medical Systems, LLC.) breast cancer patient treatments were used as the fitting dataset for this study. Similar to the Curie‐seconds concept in brachytherapy, we considered dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) as a function of target volumes. Using a MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) script, we generated linear (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) and quadratic fits and tested the resulting equations on an additional set of 30 patients.
Results
We found a strong correlation between the dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) and patients’ target volumes for both the linear and quadratic models. The linear fit was selected for use and using the polyval function in MATLAB, a 95% CI graph was created to depict the accuracy of the prediction for treatment times. Testing the model on 30 additional patients with target volumes ranging from 20 to 188 cc yielded treatment times from 10 to 25 min that in all cases were within the predicted CI. The average absolute difference between the predicted and actual treatment times was 1.0 min (range 0–3.3 min). The average percent difference was 5.8% (range 0%–18.4%).
Conclusion
This work has resulted in a viable independent calculation for GammaPod treatment times. This method has been implemented as a spreadsheet that is ready for clinical use to predict and verify the accuracy of breast cancer treatment times.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Brachytherapy - methods</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>GammaPod</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lumpectomy</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physiological apparatus</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiosurgery - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>second calculation</subject><subject>Technical Note</subject><subject>Technical Notes</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</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>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYmxsbW68QMYEjfG5L3yZ2AGF01eXrSatNGFrglzB540w_AEpqbfXtqptXZhWEAuP849l4PQK0rWlBB2YiCwNeWCNU_QERVMrpSizdMH50P0POdLQijtePcMHXJBOWtbeoRgG1Oyoyk-Tjg6XJI1Jdip4OKDxSXiYtLOFnwVx7kWXEz4zIRgvsbhL5zf4w3OPuxHi7OFOA0YzAjzovsCHTgzZvvybj9G3z9--Lb9tDr_cvZ5uzlfQdM2zYr2BmQvCTTEtY5wyqBVqiM97QGIsm4Ayo2st5Q1Q69E3zPJpTGCQEdA8mN0uuju5z7YAaqxZEa9Tz6YdK2j8frfm8n_0Lt4pTulmBK8Cry9E0jx52xz0cFnsONoJhvnrJlkslNMClLRN4_QyzinqY5XqaajdSLSVWq9UDszWu0nF2tfqGuwwddvss7X-qYVglcDtw7eLQ8gxZyTdffuKdE3YeubsPVt2BV-_XDee_RPuhWgC_Crtrn-j5TebC_YIvobp_O0ww</recordid><startdate>202204</startdate><enddate>202204</enddate><creator>Chen, Leah</creator><creator>Becker, Stewart J.</creator><creator>McAvoy, Sarah Anne</creator><creator>Nichols, Elizabeth M.</creator><creator>Guerrero, Mariana</creator><general>John Wiley & 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>IAO</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>202204</creationdate><title>Correlation of treatment time to target volume for GammaPod treatments: A simple second calculation</title><author>Chen, Leah ; Becker, Stewart J. ; McAvoy, Sarah Anne ; Nichols, Elizabeth M. ; Guerrero, Mariana</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4744-1bac6b60c40f7f0312c79980b1bcc09efdc13a640f124db95bb2636aa50c80c63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Brachytherapy - methods</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>GammaPod</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lumpectomy</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physiological apparatus</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiosurgery - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>second calculation</topic><topic>Technical Note</topic><topic>Technical Notes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chen, Leah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Stewart J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAvoy, Sarah Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guerrero, Mariana</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & 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>Chen, Leah</au><au>Becker, Stewart J.</au><au>McAvoy, Sarah Anne</au><au>Nichols, Elizabeth M.</au><au>Guerrero, Mariana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Correlation of treatment time to target volume for GammaPod treatments: A simple second calculation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2022-04</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e13524</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e13524-n/a</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The GammaPod is a novel device for stereotactic breast treatments that employs 25 rotating Co‐60 sources while the patient is continuously translated in three axes to deliver a highly conformal dose to the target. There is no commercial software available for independent second calculations. The purpose of this study is to determine an efficient way to estimate GammaPod treatment times based on target volume and use it as a second calculation for patient‐specific quality assurance.
Methods
Fifty‐nine GammaPod (Xcision Medical Systems, LLC.) breast cancer patient treatments were used as the fitting dataset for this study. Similar to the Curie‐seconds concept in brachytherapy, we considered dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) as a function of target volumes. Using a MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) script, we generated linear (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) and quadratic fits and tested the resulting equations on an additional set of 30 patients.
Results
We found a strong correlation between the dose‐rate × time/(prescribed dose) and patients’ target volumes for both the linear and quadratic models. The linear fit was selected for use and using the polyval function in MATLAB, a 95% CI graph was created to depict the accuracy of the prediction for treatment times. Testing the model on 30 additional patients with target volumes ranging from 20 to 188 cc yielded treatment times from 10 to 25 min that in all cases were within the predicted CI. The average absolute difference between the predicted and actual treatment times was 1.0 min (range 0–3.3 min). The average percent difference was 5.8% (range 0%–18.4%).
Conclusion
This work has resulted in a viable independent calculation for GammaPod treatment times. This method has been implemented as a spreadsheet that is ready for clinical use to predict and verify the accuracy of breast cancer treatment times.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>35132771</pmid><doi>10.1002/acm2.13524</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1526-9914 |
ispartof | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2022-04, Vol.23 (4), p.e13524-n/a |
issn | 1526-9914 1526-9914 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8992953 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection); PubMed Central |
subjects | Analysis Brachytherapy - methods Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy Breast Neoplasms - surgery Cancer Cancer therapies Care and treatment Confidence intervals Female GammaPod Humans Lumpectomy Medical equipment Patients Physiological apparatus Radiation Radiosurgery - methods Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods second calculation Technical Note Technical Notes |
title | Correlation of treatment time to target volume for GammaPod treatments: A simple second calculation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T02%3A59%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Correlation%20of%20treatment%20time%20to%20target%20volume%20for%20GammaPod%20treatments:%20A%20simple%20second%20calculation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Applied%20Clinical%20Medical%20Physics&rft.au=Chen,%20Leah&rft.date=2022-04&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e13524&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e13524-n/a&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acm2.13524&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA755329553%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2648147408&rft_id=info:pmid/35132771&rft_galeid=A755329553&rfr_iscdi=true |