Evaluation of the effect of random setup errors on dose delivery in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

[1] Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, et al. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys. 2011;38(3):1313-1338.10.1118/1.351412021520843Search in Google Scholar

[2] Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25(5):656-661.10.1118/1.5982489608475Search in Google Scholar

[3] González-Castaño D, Peña J, Sánchez-Doblado F, et al. The change of response of ionization chambers in the penumbra and transmission regions: Impact for IMRT verification. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2008;46(4):373-380.10.1007/s11517-007-0249-z17828563Search in Google Scholar

[4] Kim KH, Kim DS, Kim TH, et al. The influence of the IMRT QA set-up error on the 2D and 3D gamma evaluation method as obtained by using Monte Carlo simulations. J Korean Phys Soc. 2015;67:1859-1867.10.3938/jkps.67.1859Search in Google Scholar

[5] Thilmann C, Nill S, Tücking T, et al. Correction of patient positioning errors based on in-line cone beam CTs: clinical implementation and first experiences. Radiat Oncol. 2006;1:16.10.1186/1748-717X-1-16155751816723023Search in Google Scholar

[6] Su J, Chen W, Yang H, et al. Different setup errors assessed by weekly cone-beam computed tomography on different registration in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:2545-2553.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Xu F, Wang J, Bai S, et al. Interfractional and intrafractional setup errors in radiotherapy for tumors analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography. Chinese J Cancer. 2008;27(1):1111-1116.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Delishaj D, Ursino S, Pasqualetti F, et al. Set-up errors in head and neck cancer treated with IMRT technique assessed by cone-beam computed tomography: a feasible protocol. Radiat Oncol J. 2018;36(1):54-62.10.3857/roj.2017.00493590336229621873Search in Google Scholar

[9] Deveau MA, Gutiérrez AN, Mackie TR, et al. Dosimetric impact of daily setup variations during treatment of canine nasal tumors using Intensity modulated radiation therapy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2010:51(1):90-96.10.1111/j.1740-8261.2009.01629.x282671520166402Search in Google Scholar

[10] Zhang X, Shan G-p, Liu JP, Wang BB.. Margin evaluation of translational and rotational set-up errors in intensity modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer. SpringerPlus. 2016;5:153.10.1186/s40064-016-1796-2476614327026850Search in Google Scholar

[11] Hong TS, Tome WA, Chappell RJ, et al. The impact of daily setup variations on head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(3):779-788.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.07.69615708257Search in Google Scholar

[12] Dhanabalan R, Vivekanandan N, Prakash J, et al. SU-E-T-169: Characterization and Evaluation of Octavius 4D System for Patient Specific Quality Assurance Using 3D Gamma Index Analysis in VMAT. Medical Physics. 2013;40(6Part13):243.10.1118/1.4814604Search in Google Scholar

[13] McKenzie EM, Balter PA, Stingo FC, et al. Reproducibility in patient-specific IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(3):241-251.10.1120/jacmp.v15i3.4741404886724892350Search in Google Scholar