2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.12.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dosimetric evaluation of two treatment planning systems for high dose rate brachytherapy applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) uses multiple depth electrodes implanted in the brain to identify seizure zones, with robotic and computer assisted trajectory planning gaining interest. [36][37][38] Treatment planning systems play a large role in radiotherapy, including brachytherapy, [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] where the radiation dose to patient-specific targets and organs at risk (OAR) are analyzed and treatments are planned accordingly. IMT differs from external electric fields devices in that electrodes are implanted directly in or adjacent tumor volumes, requiring trajectory planning of multiple electrodes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) uses multiple depth electrodes implanted in the brain to identify seizure zones, with robotic and computer assisted trajectory planning gaining interest. [36][37][38] Treatment planning systems play a large role in radiotherapy, including brachytherapy, [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] where the radiation dose to patient-specific targets and organs at risk (OAR) are analyzed and treatments are planned accordingly. IMT differs from external electric fields devices in that electrodes are implanted directly in or adjacent tumor volumes, requiring trajectory planning of multiple electrodes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The percentage deviations of the dose calibration between Abacus TPS and TG-43U1 formalism at P (8cm, 90°) were −2.30%, 1.76%, and 2.10% with the distances (between the dwell positions) of 0cm, 0.5cm, and 1cm, respectively. Shwetha et al 14 calculated similar dose differences, up to 1.88%, along the perpendicular axis of the source. They observed that the absorbed dose D ( r, θ ) strongly depends on the radial distance r and the angle between the source center and the point of interest.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…These tallies were then normalized to the tally at 1 cm at an angle, θ 0 , of 90 degrees ( π 2 radians) and multiplied by the appropriate ratio of the geometry function, calculated at the reference point and divided by the geometry function at the specified r and π 2 radians, as in equation (3). Radial dose function values computed using MCNP6.2 were compared against those used in the Oncentra treatment planning system (TPS) (Shwetha et al 2012, Singh et al 2012, Ferre et al 2013 at the University of Texas Heath San Antonio Mays Cancer Center. The radial dose was calculated using a line source approximation and the ratio of each dose rate was multiplied by the appropriate ratio of the geometry function at specified distances to obtain g L (r,θ) at each distance.…”
Section: Tg-43 Ir-192 Source Verificationmentioning
confidence: 99%