282 research outputs found

    Evaluation of Hybrid Arc and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Treatment Plans for Fractionated Stereotactic Intracranial Radiotherapy.

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: The study was aimed to compare hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment plans for fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of brain tumors. METHODS: Treatment plans of 22 patients were studied. Hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans were generated using Brainlab iPlanDose and Varian Eclipse treatment planning systems, respectively, with 6 MV photon beams on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (Palo Alto, CA). Prescription dose was 54 Gy. The fractionation was 1.8 Gy per fraction and 30 fractions in total, or 2 Gy per fraction and 27 fractions in total. Planning target volume ranged from 2.4 to 28.6 cm RESULTS: Conformity indexes of hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans are 1.10 ± 0.10 and 1.14 ± 0.07, respectively ( P = .4); gradient indexes are 5.02 ± 1.20 and 5.64 ± 1.28, respectively ( P = .0001); homogeneity indexes are 1.02 ± 0.01 and 1.05 ± 0.01, respectively ( P = .0001); brainstem maximum doses are 53.87 ± 1.63 Gy and 54.06 ± 3.17 Gy, respectively ( P = .1); and optic chiasm maximum doses are 53.86 ± 1.28 Gy and 53.95 ± 1.81, respectively ( P = .4). The monitor unit efficiencies of hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans are 2.57 ± 0.25 MU/cGy and 2.68 ± 0.24 MU/cGy, respectively ( P = .2). The differences of conformity index, gradient index, and homogeneity index between hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans are small: 0.08 ± 0.05, 0.65 ± 0.46, and 0.02 ± 0.01, respectively. The maximum doses in organs at risks are similar between hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans. Hybrid arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans, which have similar monitor unit efficiencies, present similar dosimetric results in the fractionated intracranial radiotherapy

    Mildly explosive autoregression with anti-persistent errors

    Get PDF
    Ministry of Education, Singapore under its Academic Research Funding Tier

    Comparison of Online 6 Degree-of-Freedom Image Registration of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Intracranial Radiosurgery.

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: The study was aimed to compare online 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations of TrueBeam cone-beam computed tomography and BrainLab ExacTrac X-ray imaging systems for intracranial radiosurgery. METHODS: Phantom and patient studies were performed on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (version 2.5), which is integrated with a BrainLab ExacTrac imaging system (version 6.1.1). The phantom study was based on a Rando head phantom and was designed to evaluate isocenter location dependence of the image registrations. Ten isocenters at various locations representing clinical treatment sites were selected in the phantom. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken when the phantom was located at each isocenter. The patient study included 34 patients. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken at each patient\u27s treatment position. The 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations were performed on cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac, and residual errors calculated from cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac were compared. RESULTS: In the phantom study, the average residual error differences (absolute values) between cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac image registrations were 0.17 ± 0.11 mm, 0.36 ± 0.20 mm, and 0.25 ± 0.11 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.34° ± 0.08°, 0.13° ± 0.09°, and 0.12° ± 0.10°, respectively. In the patient study, the average residual error differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions were 0.20 ± 0.16 mm, 0.30 ± 0.18 mm, 0.21 ± 0.18 mm, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.40°± 0.16°, 0.17° ± 0.13°, and 0.20° ± 0.14°, respectively. Overall, the average residual error differences wer

    Dosimetric validation for an automatic brain metastases planning software using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arcsDosimetric validation for an automatic brain metastases planning software using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arcs.

    Get PDF
    An automatic brain-metastases planning (ABMP) software has been installed in our institution. It is dedicated for treating multiple brain metastases with radiosurgery on linear accelerators (linacs) using a single-setup isocenter with noncoplanar dynamic conformal arcs. This study is to validate the calculated absolute dose and dose distribution of ABMP. Three types of measurements were performed to validate the planning software: 1, dual micro ion chambers were used with an acrylic phantom to measure the absolute dose; 2, a 3D cylindrical phantom with dual diode array was used to evaluate 2D dose distribution and point dose for smaller targets; and 3, a 3D pseudo-in vivo patient-specific phantom filled with polymer gels was used to evaluate the accuracy of 3D dose distribution and radia-tion delivery. Micro chamber measurement of two targets (volumes of 1.2 cc and 0.9 cc, respectively) showed that the percentage differences of the absolute dose at both targets were less than 1%. Averaged GI passing rate of five different plans measured with the diode array phantom was above 98%, using criteria of 3% dose difference, 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA), and 10% low-dose threshold. 3D gel phantom measurement results demonstrated a 3D displacement of nine targets of 0.7 ± 0.4 mm (range 0.2 ~ 1.1 mm). The averaged two-dimensional (2D) GI passing rate for several region of interests (ROI) on axial slices that encompass each one of the nine targets was above 98% (5% dose difference, 2 mm DTA, and 10% low-dose threshold). Measured D95, the minimum dose that covers 95% of the target volume, of the nine targets was 0.7% less than the calculated D95. Three different types of dosimetric verification methods were used and proved the dose calculation of the new automatic brain metastases planning (ABMP) software was clinical acceptable. The 3D pseudo-in vivo patient-specific gel phantom test also served as an end-to-end test for validating not only the dose calculation, but the treatment delivery accuracy as well

    Mild-explosive and local-to-mild-explosive autoregressions with serially correlated errors

    Get PDF

    The grid bootstrap for continuous time models

    Get PDF

    AN EVALUATION OF THE POOLED LOLLI-METHOD RT-qPCR TESTING FOR COVID-19 SURVEILLANCE IN SINGAPORE

    Get PDF
    Background: Following the success of the Lolli-Method or Lolli-Test as a surveillance method in Germany, the Ministry of Health, Singapore investigated the feasibility of deploying the method as a rostered routine testing in vulnerable individuals such as children, nursing homes and frontline workers; and evaluated the sensitivity and ideal pooling ratio of the Lolli-Method.  Methods: The study was conducted in two phases – the first phase was to assess the operational feasibility of the Lolli-Method. It was held in conjunction with air sampling at a childcare centre with children ages 2 to 6 years old across 40 days. The second phase was to evaluate the sensitivity of the Lolli-Method with different pooling ratios and was conducted in collaboration with the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) where each pool was spiked with one Lolli swab from a COVID-positive patient. All patients enrolled in this study have their viral load cycle threshold (CT) levels assessed prior to admission via a mid-turbinate oropharyngeal (MTOP) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab.  Results: The sensitivity of the pooled Lolli-Test was similar to antigen rapid tests with 100% sensitivity (3/3) in a pooling ratio of 20:1 for patients with viral loads of cycle threshold (CT) levels below 20. For individuals with lower viral loads, the sensitivity of the Lolli-Test was 66.7% (2/3) in a pooling ratio of 20:1 and 100% (2/2) in a smaller pooling ratio of 15:1. The operational feasibility of the Lolli-Test was assessed to be high amongst study participants although students were noted to require some additional assistance from teachers.  Conclusion: The Lolli-Test is an effective surveillance method with adequate sensitivity to detect a COVID-19 infected individual in a pool of up to 20 albeit largely dependent on the viral load. Furthermore, the Lolli-Test also provides a less invasive alternative sample collection method for individuals who cannot tolerate or have contraindications for the regular nasal or oropharyngeal swabs such as young children. More studies should be done to assess the Lolli-Test’s true limit of detection and to evaluate the use of the Lolli-Method in infants and for other respiratory diseases such as influenza

    Rasch Models of Aphasic Deficits of Syntactic Comprehension

    Get PDF
    Responses of forty-two patients with aphasia secondary to left hemisphere strokes to eleven sentence types in enactment and sentence-picture matching tasks were modeled using Rasch models that varied in the inclusion of the factors of task, sentence type grouping, and patient clustering. The best fitting models required the factors of task and patient group but not sentence type grouping. The simulation suggests that aphasic syntactic comprehension is best accounted for by models that include different estimates of resource availability for different tasks and different resource availability in different groups of patients, but not deficits affecting specific syntactic structures

    Impact of new cardiovascular events on quality of life and hospital costs in people with cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom and United States

    Get PDF
    Background Despite optimized risk factor control, people with prior cardiovascular disease remain at high cardiovascular disease risk. We assess the immediate‐ and longer‐term impacts of new vascular and nonvascular events on quality of life (QoL) and hospital costs among participants in the REVEAL (Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Anacetrapib Through Lipid Modification) trial in secondary prevention. Methods and Results Data on demographic and clinical characteristics, health‐related quality of life (QoL: EuroQoL 5‐Dimension‐5‐Level), adverse events, and hospital admissions during the 4‐year follow‐up of the 21 820 participants recruited in Europe and North America informed assessments of the impacts of new adverse events on QoL and hospital costs from the UK and US health systems' perspectives using generalized linear regression models. Reductions in QoL were estimated in the years of event occurrence for nonhemorrhagic stroke (−0.067 [United Kingdom], −0.069 [US]), heart failure admission (−0.072 [United Kingdom], −0.103 [US]), incident cancer (−0.064 [United Kingdom], −0.068 [US]), and noncoronary revascularization (−0.071 [United Kingdom], −0.061 [US]), as well as in subsequent years following these events. Myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization (CRV) procedures were not found to affect QoL. All adverse events were associated with additional hospital costs in the years of events and in subsequent years, with the highest additional costs in the years of noncoronary revascularization (£5830 [United Kingdom], US dollars 14 133 [US Medicare]), of myocardial infarction with urgent CRV procedure (£5614, US dollars 24722), and of urgent/nonurgent CRV procedure without myocardial infarction (£4674/£4651 and US dollars 15 251/US dollars 17 539). Conclusions Stroke, heart failure, and noncoronary revascularization procedures substantially reduce QoL, and all cardiovascular disease events increase hospital costs. These estimates are useful in informing cost‐effectiveness of interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in secondary prevention. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01252953; https://www.Isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN48678192; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu. Unique identifier: 2010‐023467‐18
    corecore