DOI: 10.22215/etd/2016-11545
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Advancements in Monte Carlo Dose Calculations for Prostate and Breast Permanent Implant Brachytherapy

Abstract: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of radiation transport may provide more accurate estimates of dose delivered to permanent implant brachytherapy patients compared to the current clinical AAPM TG-43 dose calculation paradigm. However, MC dose calculations are burdened by considerable sensitivity to several required modelling assumptions, especially with the low-energy photon sources typical of permanent implant brachytherapy (20-30 keV). MC simulations require a detailed virtual model of the patient, often derived … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 94 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…F I G U R E 8 Zoomed in crops of Figure 5a showing singular high-dose air voxels outside of the patient for noVR MC results of 177 Lu simulations and Figure 2b showing a protrusion (in red) of the prostate contour to the patient's bottom left (image's bottom right) that may not be representative of the actual prostate volume Furthermore, even using the large 80 cm side length kernel, roughly 1% of the particles (by energy) generated in the center voxel escape the DPK. Finally, roughly 22% of 177 Lu decays from the source are nonbeta decays, and for many of the possible photon decays, the change in mass-energy absorption coefficients with energy and composition 28 can further increase the discrepancy between the DPK and MC results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…F I G U R E 8 Zoomed in crops of Figure 5a showing singular high-dose air voxels outside of the patient for noVR MC results of 177 Lu simulations and Figure 2b showing a protrusion (in red) of the prostate contour to the patient's bottom left (image's bottom right) that may not be representative of the actual prostate volume Furthermore, even using the large 80 cm side length kernel, roughly 1% of the particles (by energy) generated in the center voxel escape the DPK. Finally, roughly 22% of 177 Lu decays from the source are nonbeta decays, and for many of the possible photon decays, the change in mass-energy absorption coefficients with energy and composition 28 can further increase the discrepancy between the DPK and MC results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, even using the large 80 cm side length kernel, roughly 1% of the particles (by energy) generated in the center voxel escape the DPK. Finally, roughly 22% of 177 Lu decays from the source are nonbeta decays, and for many of the possible photon decays, the change in mass‐energy absorption coefficients with energy and composition 28 can further increase the discrepancy between the DPK and MC results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These datasets were resampled to the same target spacing (2, 2, 2) and embedded into a 256 × 256 × 256 3D volumetric space [35]. After normalizing and window leveling [−200, 250] [36][37][38][39], to enhance the contrast and texture of soft tissue, the foreground of input voxels was selected from the background by an intersection with mask voxels images using MATLAB R2022a. To increase the amount of data for training the network, we augmented the CT images…”
Section: Patient Cohorts and Data Pre-processingmentioning
confidence: 99%