Abstract:The specific absorption rate (SAR) is an important issue to be considered in fetus MRI at 3 T due to the high radiofrequency energy deposited inside the body of pregnant woman. The high dielectric material (HDM) has shown its potential for enhancing B 1 field and reducing SAR in MRI. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of SAR reduction by adding an HDM to the fetus MRI. The feasibility of SAR reduction is numerically assessed in this study, using a birdcage coil in transmission loaded with an electromagnetic pregnant woman model in the SEMCAD-EM solver. The HDMs with different geometric arrangements and dielectric constants are manually optimized. TheB homogeneity is also considered while calculating the optimized fetus 10 g local SAR among different strategies in the application of HDM. The optimum maximum fetus 10 g local SAR was obtained as 2.25 W/kg, by using two conformal pads placed left and right with the dielectric constant to be 400, reduced by 24.75% compared to that without the HDM. It indicated that the SAR can be significantly reduced with strategic placement of the HDM and the use of HDM may provide a simple, effective and low-cost method for reducing the SAR for the fetus MRI at 3 T.
Aims The aim of this study was to make a quantitative comparison of plan quality between MLC-based EDGE system and the cone-based CyberKnife system in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods Ten patients with prostate volumes ranging from 34.65 to 82.16 cc were used for prostate SBRT. Treatment plans were created for both EDGE and CyberKnife G4 systems using the same dose-volume constraints. Dosimetric indices including Planning Tumor Volume (PTV) coverage, conformity index (CI), new conformity index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) were applied for target, while the sparing of critical organs, including bladder, rectum, femoral heads, urethra, penile bulk and normal tissue outside PTV), were evaluated interms of various dose-volume metrics and integral dose (ID). Meanwhile, the required delivery time and number of monitor units (MUs) during irradiation were measured to estimate the treatment efficiency. The radiobiological indices such as equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were also analyzed. Results All dose constraints were achieved by both systems. It showed that the DEGE plans results were closest to the CK plans results in terms of PTV coverage, HI and GI. For EDGE, more conformal dose distribution in the target as well as reduced exposure of critical organs were obtained together with reduction of 91% delivery time and 72% monitor units. EDGE plans also got lower EUD for bladder, rectum, urethra and penile bulk, which associated with reduction of NTCPs. However, higher values of EUD and TCP for tumor were obtained with CK plans. Conclusions Our study indicated that both systems were capable of producing almost equivalent plan quality and can meet clinical requirements. CyberKnife G4 system has higher target dose while EDGE system has more advantages based on the considerations of normal tissue sparing and delivery efficiency. With abundant clinical experience, CK provides accurate SBRT treatment with high quality. EDGE system also can be considered to be an option for SBRT treatment for localized prostate cancer treatment.
Aims: The aim of this study was to make a quantitative comparison of plan quality between MLC-based EDGE system and the cone-based CyberKnife system in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer.Materials and methods: Ten patients with prostate volumes ranging from 34.65 to 82.16 cc were used for prostate SBRT. Treatment plans were created for both EDGE and CyberKnife G4 systems using the same dose-volume constraints. Dosimetric indices including Planning Tumor Volume (PTV) coverage, conformity index (CI), new conformity index (nCI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) were applied for target, while the sparing of critical organs, including bladder, rectum, femoral heads, urethra, penile bulk and normal tissue outside PTV), were evaluated interms of various dose-volume metrics and integral dose (ID). Meanwhile, the required delivery time and number of monitor units (MUs) during irradiation were measured to estimate the treatment efficiency. The radiobiological indices such as equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were also analyzed. Results: All dose constraints were achieved by both systems. It showed that the DEGE plans results were closest to the CK plans results in terms of PTV coverage, HI and GI. For EDGE, more conformal dose distribution in the target as well as reduced exposure of critical organs were obtained together with reduction of 91% delivery time and 72% monitor units. EDGE plans also got lower EUD for bladder, rectum, urethra and penile bulk, which associated with reduction of NTCPs. However, higher values of EUD and TCP for tumor were obtained with CK plans. Conclusions: Our study indicated that both systems were capable of producing almost equivalent plan quality and can meet clinical requirements. CyberKnife G4 system has higher target dose while EDGE system has more advantages based on the considerations of normal tissue sparing and delivery efficiency. With abundant clinical experience, CK provides accurate SBRT treatment with high quality. EDGE system also can be considered to be an option for SBRT treatment for localized prostate cancer treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.