000			nab a22 7a 4500
999			_c17563 _d17563
003			PC17563
005			20230706113148.0
008			230706b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cH12O
041			_aeng
100			_91799 _aPérez-Regadera Gómez, José Fermín _eOncología Radioterápica
245	0	0	_aAssessment of radiobiological metrics applied to patient-specific QA process of VMAT prostate treatments. _h[artículo]
260			_bJournal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics, _c2016
300			_a17(2):341-67.
500			_aFormato Vancouver: Clemente Gutiérrez F, Pérez Vara C, Clavo Herranz MH, López Carrizosa C, Pérez Regadera J, Ibáñez Villoslada C. Assessment of radiobiological metrics applied to patient-specific QA process of VMAT prostate treatments. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Mar 8;17(2):341-367.
501			_aPMID: 27074458 PMC7711539
504			_aContiene 66 referencias
520			_aVMAT is a powerful technique to deliver hypofractionated prostate treatments. The lack of correlations between usual 2D pretreatment QA results and the clinical impact of possible mistakes has allowed the development of 3D verification systems. Dose determination on patient anatomy has provided clinical predictive capability to patient-specific QA process. Dose-volume metrics, as evaluation criteria, should be replaced or complemented by radiobiological indices. These metrics can be incorporated into individualized QA extracting the information for response parameters (gEUD, TCP, NTCP) from DVHs. The aim of this study is to assess the role of two 3D verification systems dealing with radiobiological metrics applied to a prostate VMAT QA program. Radiobiological calculations were performed for AAPM TG-166 test cases. Maximum differences were 9.3% for gEUD, -1.3% for TCP, and 5.3% for NTCP calculations. Gamma tests and DVH-based comparisons were carried out for both systems in order to assess their performance in 3D dose determination for prostate treatments (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk, as well as prostate bed patients). Mean gamma passing rates for all structures were bet-ter than 92.0% and 99.1% for both 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. Maximum discrepancies were (2.4% ± 0.8%) and (6.2% ± 1.3%) for targets and normal tis-sues, respectively. Values for gEUD, TCP, and NTCP were extracted from TPS and compared to the results obtained with the two systems. Three models were used for TCP calculations (Poisson, sigmoidal, and Niemierko) and two models for NTCP determinations (LKB and Niemierko). The maximum mean difference for gEUD calculations was (4.7% ± 1.3%); for TCP, the maximum discrepancy was (-2.4% ± 1.1%); and NTCP comparisons led to a maximum deviation of (1.5% ± 0.5%). The potential usefulness of biological metrics in patient-specific QA has been explored. Both systems have been successfully assessed as potential tools for evaluating the clinical outcome of a radiotherapy treatment in the scope of pretreatment QA.
710			_9302 _aServicio de Oncología Radioterápica
856			_uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7711539/pdf/ACM2-17-341.pdf _yAcceso libre
942			_2ddc _cART _n0