Investigation of Power Flow in a Tapered Transmission Line Modification to HERMES -III using an Array of Dose- and Dose-rate Detectors in the Near- and Far-field
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Renk, Timothy Jerome↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “dose”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Quantifying the effects of neutron dose, dose protraction, age and sex on mouse survival using parametric regression and machine learning on a 21,000-mouse data set
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Eric Wang↗
Characterizing low dose and dose rate effects in rodent and human neural stem cells exposed to proton and gamma irradiation
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Bertrand P. Tseng↗
MECHANISTIC MODELING PREDICTS NO SIGNIFICANT DOSE RATE EFFECT ON HEAVY-ION CARCINOGENESIS AT DOSE RATES RELEVANT FOR SPACE EXPLORATION
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Igor Shuryak↗
A summary of the OV1-19 satellite dose, depth dose, and linear energy transfer spectral measurements
Measurements of the biophysical and physical parameters in the near earth space environment, specifically, the Inner Van Allen Belt are discussed. This region of space is of great interest to planners of the Skylab and the Space Station programs because of the high energy proton environment, especially during periods of increased solar activity. Many physical measurements of charged particle flux, spectra, and pitch angle distribution have been conducted and are programmed in the space radiation environment. Such predictions are not sufficient to accurately predict the effects of space radiations on critical biological and electronic systems operating in these environments. Some of the difficulties encountered in transferring from physical data to a prediction of the effects of space radiation on operational systems are discussed.
Cervini, J. T.↗
Hardness Assurance for Total Dose and Dose Rate Testing of a State-of-the-Art Off-Shore 32 nm SOI CMOS Processor
No abstract available
LaBel, Kenneth A.↗
Dose‐dependent sensorimotor impairment in human ocular tracking after acute low‐dose alcohol administration
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Terence L. Tyson↗
Avoidable Dose and Total Dose Radiological Assessments in Support of Public Protection Decisions.
Abstract not provided.
Kraus, Terrence D.↗
Quantitative assessment of the accuracy of dose calculation using pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms and requirements for clinical quality assurance
To compare the doses calculated using the BrainLAB pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for tumors located in various sites including the lung and evaluate quality assurance procedures required for the verification of the accuracy of dose calculation. The dose-calculation accuracy of PB and MC was also assessed quantitatively with measurement using ionization chamber and Gafchromic films placed in solid water and heterogeneous phantoms. The dose was calculated using PB convolution and MC algorithms in the iPlan treatment planning system from BrainLAB. The dose calculation was performed on the patient's computed tomography images with lesions in various treatment sites including 5 lungs, 5 prostates, 4 brains, 2 head and necks, and 2 paraspinal tissues. A combination of conventional, conformal, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans was used in dose calculation. The leaf sequence from intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans or beam shapes from conformal plans and monitor units and other planning parameters calculated by the PB were identical for calculating dose with MC. Heterogeneity correction was considered in both PB and MC dose calculations. Dose-volume parameters such as V95 (volume covered by 95% of prescription dose), dose distributions, and gamma analysis were used to evaluate the calculated dose by PB and MC. The measured doses by ionization chamber and EBT GAFCHROMIC film in solid water and heterogeneous phantoms were used to quantitatively asses the accuracy of dose calculated by PB and MC. The dose-volume histograms and dose distributions calculated by PB and MC in the brain, prostate, paraspinal, and head and neck were in good agreement with one another (within 5%) and provided acceptable planning target volume coverage. However, dose distributions of the patients with lung cancer had large discrepancies. For a plan optimized with PB, the dose coverage was shown as clinically acceptable, whereas in reality, the MC showed a systematic lack of dose coverage. The dose calculated by PB for lung tumors was overestimated by up to 40%. An interesting feature that was observed is that despite large discrepancies in dose-volume histogram coverage of the planning target volume between PB and MC, the point doses at the isocenter (center of the lesions) calculated by both algorithms were within 7% even for lung cases. The dose distributions measured with EBT GAFCHROMIC films in heterogeneous phantoms showed large discrepancies of nearly 15% lower than PB at interfaces between heterogeneous media, where these lower doses measured by the film were in agreement with those by MC. The doses (V95) calculated by MC and PB agreed within 5% for treatment sites with small tissue heterogeneities such as the prostate, brain, head and neck, and paraspinal tumors. Considerable discrepancies, up to 40%, were observed in the dose-volume coverage between MC and PB in lung tumors, which may affect clinical outcomes. The discrepancies between MC and PB increased for 15 MV compared with 6 MV indicating the importance of implementation of accurate clinical treatment planning such as MC. The comparison of point doses is not representative of the discrepancies in dose coverage and might be misleading in evaluating the accuracy of dose calculation between PB and MC. Thus, the clinical quality assurance procedures required to verify the accuracy of dose calculation using PB and MC need to consider measurements of 2- and 3-dimensional dose distributions rather than a single point measurement using heterogeneous phantoms instead of homogenous water-equivalent phantoms.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
MO-PIS-Exhibit Hall-01: Imaging: CT Dose Optimization Technologies I
Partners in Solutions is an exciting new program in which AAPM partners with our vendors to present practical “hands-on” information about the equipment and software systems that we use in our clinics. The imaging topic this year is CT scanner dose optimization capabilities. Note that the sessions are being held in a special purpose room built on the Exhibit Hall Floor, to encourage further interaction with the vendors. Dose Optimization Capabilities of GE Computed Tomography Scanners Presentation Time: 11:15 – 11:45 AM GE Healthcare is dedicated to the delivery of high quality clinical images through the development of technologies, which optimize the application of ionizing radiation. In computed tomography, dose management solutions fall into four categories: employs projection data and statistical modeling to decrease noise in the reconstructed image - creating an opportunity for mA reduction in the acquisition of diagnostic images. Veo represents true Model Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBiR). Using high-level algorithms in tandem with advanced computing power, Veo enables lower pixel noise standard deviation and improved spatial resolution within a single image. Advanced Adaptive Image Filters allow for maintenance of spatial resolution while reducing image noise. Examples of adaptive image space filters include Neuro 3-D filters and Cardiac Noise Reduction Filters. AutomA adjusts mA along the z-axis and is the CT equivalent of auto exposure control in conventional x-ray systems. Dynamic Z-axis Tracking offers an additional opportunity for dose reduction in helical acquisitions while SmartTrack Z-axis Tracking serves to ensure beam, collimator and detector alignment during tube rotation. SmartmA provides angular mA modulation. ECG Helical Modulation reduces mA during the systolic phase of the heart cycle. SmartBeam optimization uses bowtie beam-shaping hardware and software to filter off-axis x-rays - minimizing dose and reducing x-ray scatter. The DICOM Radiation Dose Structured Report (RDSR) generates a dose report at the conclusion of every examination. Dose Check preemptively notifies CT operators when scan parameters exceed user-defined dose thresholds. DoseWatch is an information technology application providing vendor-agnostic dose tracking and analysis for CT (and all other diagnostic x-ray modalities) SnapShot Pulse improves coronary CTA dose management. VolumeShuttle uses two acquisitions to increase coverage, decrease dose, and conserve on contrast administration. Color-Coding for Kids applies the Broselow-Luten Pediatric System to facilitate pediatric emergency care and reduce medical errors. FeatherLight achieves dose optimization through pediatric procedure-based protocols. Adventure Series scanners provide a child-friendly imaging environment promoting patient cooperation with resultant reduction in retakes and patient motion. Philips CT Dose Optimization Tools and Advanced Reconstruction Presentation Time: 11:45 ‘ 12:15 PM The first part of the talk will cover “Dose Reduction and Dose Optimization Technologies” present in Philips CT Scanners. The main Technologies to be presented include: DoseRight and tube current modulation (DoseRight, Z-DOM, 3D-DOM, DoseRight Cardiac) Special acquisition modes Beam filtration and beam shapers Eclipse collimator and ClearRay collimator NanoPanel detector DoseRight will cover automatic tube current selection that automatically adjusts the dose for the individual patient. The presentation will explore the modulation techniques currently employed in Philips CT scanners and will include the algorithmic concepts as well as illustrative examples. Modulation and current selection technologies to be covered include the Automatic Current Selection component of DoseRight, ZDOM longitudinal dose modulation, 3D-DOM (combination of longitudinal and rotational dose modulation), Cardiac Dose right (an ECG based dose modulation scheme), and the DoseRight Index (DRI) IQ index. The special acquisition modes covers acquisition techniques such as prospective gating that is designed to reduce exposure to the patient through the Cardiac Step and Shoot scan mode. This mode can substitute the much higher dose retrospective scan modes for certain types of cardiac imaging. The beam filtration and beam shaper portion will discuss the variety of filtration and beam shaping configurations available on Philips scanners. This topic includes the x-ray beam characteristics, tube filtration as well as dose compensator characteristics. The Eclipse collimator, ClearRay collimator and the NanoPanel detector portion will discuss additional technologies specific to wide coverage CT that address some of the unique challenges encountered and techniques employed to optimize image quality and optimize dose utilization. The Eclipse collimator reduces extraneous exposure by actively blocking the radiation tails at either end of helical scans that do not contribute to the image generation. The ClearRay collimator and the NanoPanel detector optimize the quality of the signal that reaches the detectors by addressing the increased scattered radiation present in wide coverage and the NanoPanel detector adds superior electronic noise characteristics valuable when imaging at a low dose level. The second part of the talk will present “Advanced Reconstruction Technologies” currently available on Philips CT Scanners. The talk will cover filtered back projection (FBP), iDose4 and Iterative Model Reconstruction (IMR). Each reconstruction method will include a discussion of the algorithm as well as similarities and differences between the algorithms. Examples illustrating the merits of each algorithm will be presented, and techniques and metrics to characterize the performance of each type of algorithm will be presented. The Filtered Back projection portion will discuss and provide a brief summary of relevant standard image reconstruction techniques in common use, and discuss the common tradeoffs when using the FBP algorithm. The iDose4 portion will present the algorithms used for iDose4 as well the different levels. The meaning of different levels of iDose4 available will be presented and quantified. Guidelines for selection iDose4 parameters based on the imaging need will be explained. The different image quality goals available with iDose4 and specifically how iDose4 enables noise reduction, spatial resolution improvement or both will be explained. The approaches to leveraging the benefits of iDose4 such as improved spatial resolution, decreased noise, and artifact prevention will be described and quantified; and measurements and metrics behind the improvements will be presented. The image quality benefits in specific imaging situations as well as how to best combine the technology with other dose reduction strategies to ensure the best image quality at a given dose level will be presented. Insight into the IMR algorithm as well as contrast to the iDose4 techniques and performance characteristics will be discussed. Metrics and techniques for characterizing this class of algorithm and IQ performance will be presented. The image quality benefits and the dose reduction capabilities of IMR will be explored. Illustrative examples of the noise reduction, spatial resolution improvement, and low contrast detectability improvements of the reconstruction method will be presented: clinical cases and phantom measurements demonstrating the benefits of IMR in the areas of low dose imaging, spatial resolution and low contrast resolution are discussed and the technical details behind the measurements will be presented compared to both iDose4 and traditional filtered back projection (FBP)
46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
TU-PIS-Exhibit Hall-01: CT Dose Optimization Technologies II
Partners in Solutions is an exciting new program in which AAPM partners with our vendors to present practical “hands-on” information about the equipment and software systems that we use in our clinics. The imaging topic this year is CT scanner dose optimization capabilities. Note that the sessions are being held in a special purpose room built on the Exhibit Hall Floor, to encourage further interaction with the vendors. Siemens‘ Commitment to the Right Dose in Computed Tomography Presentation Time: 11:15 - 11:45 AM Providing sustainable clinical results at highest patient safety: This is the challenge in medical imaging. Especially for Computed Tomography this means applying not simply the lowest, but the right dose for sound diagnostic imaging. Consequently, Siemens is committed to deliver the right dose in CT. In order to reduce radiation to the right dose, the first step is to provide the right dose technology. Through decades of research and development in CT imaging, Siemens CT has constantly introduced new ideas leading to a comprehensive portfolio of unique CARE technologies to deliver the right dose. For example automated kV adjustment based on patient size and the clinical question with CARE kV and three generations of iterative reconstruction. Based on the right dose technology, the next step is to actually scan at the right dose. For this, it is key to know the right dose targets for every examination. Siemens continuously involves CT experts to push developments further and outline how users can best adapt their procedures to the right dose. For users to know whether they met the right dose targets, it is therefore important to understand and monitor the actual absolute dose values. All scanners are delivered with defined default protocols which automatically use the available right dose technologies. Finally, to deliver the right dose not just in singular cases, but ideally to patients everywhere, organizations need then to manage dose across their institutions. Here Siemens offers the right dose management tools for administrations to analyze and document dose, to train their clinical staff and to continuously optimize the application of the right dose in clinical routine. Siemens CT is not only adhering to the ALARA principle, but is inspired by it. With CARE Right Siemens show their commitment to the right dose in CT. Toshiba Aquilion CT Dose Management Tools Presentation Time: 11:45 - 12:15 PM A practical review of Toshiba’s CT dose management technologies from the physicist’s perspective. This presentation will include an overview of Toshiba’s CT dose reduction technologies and dose safeguards. Content will include answers to frequently asked questions relating to dose management, dose tracking, CTDI measurement, ACR accreditation, ACR QC, and protocol review on Toshiba CT systems. Specific topics will include the following: Toshiba’s mechanism of tube current modulation; Exposure record format and interpretation of the values; Dose reporting and dose safeguard tools; Use of AIDR 3D iterative reconstruction; The configuration of task specific image quality target and its integration with AIDR 3D; Tips for scanning the ACR phantom with wide beam geometry; Measuring CTDI for wide beam geometry; Discussion of daily QC procedures and specifications; Tips for annual QC evaluation; Protocol management tools.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
Accuracy of pencil-beam redefinition algorithm dose calculations in patient-like cylindrical phantoms for bolus electron conformal therapy
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to document the improved accuracy of the pencil beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) compared to the pencil beam algorithm (PBA) for bolus electron conformal therapy using cylindrical patient phantoms based on patient computed tomography (CT) scans of retromolar trigone and nose cancer.Methods: PBRA and PBA electron dose calculations were compared with measured dose in retromolar trigone and nose phantoms both with and without bolus. For the bolus treatment plans, a radiation oncologist outlined a planning target volume (PTV) on the central axis slice of the CT scan for each phantom. A bolus was designed using the planning.decimal{sup Registered-Sign} (p.d) software (.decimal, Inc., Sanford, FL) to conform the 90% dose line to the distal surface of the PTV. Dose measurements were taken with thermoluminescent dosimeters placed into predrilled holes. The Pinnacle{sup 3} (Philips Healthcare, Andover, MD) treatment planning system was used to calculate PBA dose distributions. The PBRA dose distributions were calculated with an in-house C++ program. In order to accurately account for the phantom materials a table correlating CT number to relative electron stopping and scattering powers was compiled and used for both PBA and PBRA dose calculations. Accuracy was determined by comparing differences in measured and calculated dose, as well as distance to agreement for each measurement point.Results: The measured doses had an average precision of 0.9%. For the retromolar trigone phantom, the PBRA dose calculations had an average {+-}1{sigma} dose difference (calculated - measured) of -0.65%{+-} 1.62% without the bolus and -0.20%{+-} 1.54% with the bolus. The PBA dose calculation had an average dose difference of 0.19%{+-} 3.27% without the bolus and -0.05%{+-} 3.14% with the bolus. For the nose phantom, the PBRA dose calculations had an average dose difference of 0.50%{+-} 3.06% without bolus and -0.18%{+-} 1.22% with the bolus. The PBA dose calculations had an average dose difference of 0.65%{+-} 6.21% without bolus and 1.75%{+-} 5.94% with the bolus. From a clinical perspective an agreement of 5% or better between planned (calculated) and delivered (measured) dose is desired. Statistically, this was true for 99% ({+-}2{sigma}) of the dose points for three of the four cases for the PBRA dose calculations, the exception being the nose without bolus for which this was true for 89% ({+-}1.6{sigma}) of the dose points. For the retromolar trigone, with and without bolus, the PBA showed agreement of 5% or better for approximately 86% ({+-}1.5{sigma}) of the dose points. For the nose, with and without bolus, the PBA showed agreement of 5% or better for only approximately 58% ({+-}0.8{sigma}) of the dose points.Conclusions: The measured data, whose high precision makes them useful for evaluation of the accuracy of electron dose algorithms, will be made publicly available. Based on the spread in dose differences, the PBRA has at least twice the accuracy of the PBA. From a clinical perspective the PBRA accuracy is acceptable in the retromolar trigone and nose for electron therapy with and without bolus.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
SU-E-T-381: Evaluation of Calculated Dose Accuracy for Organs-At-Risk Located at Out-Of-Field in a Commercial Treatment Planning System for High Energy Photon Beams Produced From TrueBeam Accelerators
Purpose: Dose calculation accuracy for the out-of-field dose is important for predicting the dose to the organs-at-risk when they are located outside primary beams. The investigations on evaluating the calculation accuracy of treatment planning systems (TPS) on out-of-field dose in existing publications have focused on low energy (6MV) photon. This study evaluates out-of-field dose calculation accuracy of AAA algorithm for 15MV high energy photon beams. Methods: We used the EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) codes to evaluate the AAA algorithm in Varian Eclipse TPS (v.11). The incident beams start with validated Varian phase-space sources for a TrueBeam linac equipped with Millennium 120 MLC. Dose comparisons between using AAA and MC for CT based realistic patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques for prostate and lung were performed and uncertainties of organ dose predicted by AAA at out-of-field location were evaluated. Results: The results show that AAA calculations under-estimate doses at the dose level of 1% (or less) of prescribed dose for CT based patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques. In regions where dose is only 1% of prescribed dose, although AAA under-estimates the out-of-field dose by 30% relative to the local dose, it is only about 0.3% of prescribed dose. For example, the uncertainties of calculated organ dose to liver or kidney that is located out-of-field is <0.3% of prescribed dose. Conclusion: For 15MV high energy photon beams, very good agreements (<1%) in calculating dose distributions were obtained between AAA and MC. The uncertainty of out-of-field dose calculations predicted by the AAA algorithm for realistic patient VMAT plans is <0.3% of prescribed dose in regions where the dose relative to the prescribed dose is <1%, although the uncertainties can be much larger relative to local doses. For organs-at-risk located at out-of-field, the error of dose predicted by Eclipse using AAA is negligible. This work was conducted in part using the resources of Varian research grant VUMC40590-R.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
Dose Summation Strategies for External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy in Gynecologic Malignancy: A Review from the NRG Oncology and NCTN Medical Physics Subcommittees
Definitive, nonsurgical management of gynecologic malignancies involves external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy (BT). Summation of the cumulative dose is critical to assess the total biologic effective dose to targets and organs at risk. Cumulative dose calculation from EBRT and BT can be performed with or without image registration (IR) and biologic dose summation. Among these dose summation strategies, linear addition of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters without IR is the global standard for composite dose reporting. This approach stems from an era without image guidance and simple external beam and brachytherapy treatment approaches. With technological advances, EBRT and high-dose-rate BT have evolved to allow for volume-based treatment planning and delivery. Modern conformal therapeutic radiation involves volumetric or intensity modulated EBRT, capable of simultaneously treating multiple targets at different specified dose levels. Therefore, given the complexity of modern radiation treatment, the linear addition of DVH parameters from EBRT and high-dose-rate BT is challenging to represent the combined dose distribution. Deformable image registration (DIR) between EBRT and image guided brachytherapy (IGBT) data sets may provide a more nuanced calculation of multimodal dose accumulation. However, DIR is still nascent in this regard, and needs further development for accuracy and efficiency for clinical use. Biologic dose summation can combine physical dose maps from EBRT and each IGBT fraction, thereby generating a composite DVH from the biologic effective dose. However, accurate radiobiologic parameters are tissue-dependent and not well characterized. A combination of voxel-based DIR and biologic weighted dose maps may be the best approximation of dose accumulation but remains invalidated. The purpose of this report is to review dose summation strategies for EBRT and BT, including conventional equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions dose summation without image registration, physical dose summation using 3-dimensional rigid IR and DIR, and biologic dose summation. We also provide general clinical workflows for IGBT with a focus on cervical cancer.
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
Validation of an Analytical Model for Therapeutic and Stray Dose Calculations of 6 MV Photon Beams
Cancer is one of the most significant health care problems today. It is estimated that 1 in 2 men and women will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime. Nearly two thirds of cancer patients will receive radiation therapy at some point in their care and the vast majority of these radiotherapy treatments will be performed with megavoltage photon therapy. Photon treatment techniques typically devote considerable attention to limiting the exposure of healthy tissues outside of the intended treatment volume. Nonetheless, small levels of unwanted stray radiation are incident upon the patient's whole body, which can increase the risk for numerous late effects, including second malignancies. When one considers that second cancers account for approximately 15% of all cancers and that it is projected that by the year 2020, there will be almost 20 million cancer survivors in the United States and four million in the UK, the need for improved accuracy in stray dose calculations appears likely to increase dramatically. Despite the obvious benefits this capability would afford, contemporary commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) lack the ability to accurately predict stray dose outside the treatment field, e.g., beyond the 5% isodose surface. Thus, there is a large, variable, and systematic underestimation of stray radiation exposures by commonly used clinical TPSs for photon therapy. To overcome this problem, in a companion paper we proposed a simple, physics-based analytical model that calculates the total therapeutic and stray dose from photon treatment fields. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the accuracy of the basic physics in the analytical absorbed dose model for several simple treatment fields. We assessed the performance of the basic physics in an analytical model that calculates the total absorbed dose deposited by primary, leakage, and scattered photons both inside and outside of square treatment fields of 6 MV photon conventional radiotherapy. The assessment was accomplished by comparing model predictions of total dose with measured dose profiles in a water-phantom. The major finding of this study is that the physics-based model performed well, predicting dose in water within 11.5% dose difference or 5 mm distance to agreement with measured values in the therapeutic region and within 1.1 mGy/Gy or 0.5 mm distance to agreement with measured values in the out-of-field region at 90% of the locations considered. Contemporary external-beam photon TPSs do not include the capability to accurately predict the absorbed dose beyond a few centimeters outside of the treatment field. Our work suggests that it is feasible to improve dosimetric accuracy in the out-of-field region using a simple and computationally fast, physics-based analytical algorithm. This is demonstrated by the measured absorbed dose as well as the corresponding values calculated by two contemporary commercial TPSs (Pinnacle, Philips Health care, Andover, MA and Eclipse, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) and the analytical model considered in this work. It is apparent that both TPSs underestimated the absorbed dose by greater than 3 mGy/Gy at locations outside of the 0.5% relative dose level. In contrast, the analytical model evaluated in this work calculated absorbed dose in the same region within 0.4 mGy/Gy of measured values. The physics-based analytical dose model could prove useful in a number of different applications. The accurate knowledge of absorbed dose deposited outside of the treatment field is especially important for predicting radiation late effects, such as second cancer, fertility complications, and cardiac toxicity. It may also facilitate predictions of the effects of in utero exposure. We conclude that it is possible to accurately calculate the therapeutic and stray absorbed dose from a conventional radiotherapy treatment field of 6 MV photons using a physics-based analytical model. This was demonstrated by the agreement between measured and calculated doses in water within 11.5% relative dose difference or 5 mm distance to agreement in the therapeutic region, and within 1.1 mGy/Gy absolute dose difference or 0.5 mm distance to agreement in the out-of-field region at 90% of positions for all of the fields considered in this work. This is also illustrated by Figure 4 which plots dose values from analytical model predictions and measurements at five representative irradiation conditions and shows that the analytical model agreement is good in all cases. Furthermore, the model validated in this work evidently can predict dose values with better accuracy at out-of-field locations than contemporary TPSs. This and previous works, taken together, suggest that analytical physics-based models will offer advantages over TPSs or Monte Carlo models for whole-body dose calculations for several radiotherapy applications.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Assessment of individual organ doses in a realistic human phantom from neutron and gamma stimulated spectroscopy of the breast and liver
Purpose: Understanding the radiation dose to a patient is essential when considering the use of an ionizing diagnostic imaging test for clinical diagnosis and screening. Using Monte Carlo simulations, the authors estimated the three-dimensional organ-dose distribution from neutron and gamma irradiation of the male liver, female liver, and female breasts for neutron- and gamma-stimulated spectroscopic imaging. Methods: Monte Carlo simulations were developed using the Geant4 GATE application and a voxelized XCAT human phantom. A male and a female whole body XCAT phantom was voxelized into 256 × 256 × 600 voxels (3.125 × 3.125 × 3.125 mm{sup 3}). A monoenergetic rectangular beam of 5.0 MeV neutrons or 7.0 MeV photons was made incident on a 2 cm thick slice of the phantom. The beam was rotated at eight different angles around the phantom ranging from 0° to 180°. Absorbed dose was calculated for each individual organ in the body and dose volume histograms were computed to analyze the absolute and relative doses in each organ. Results: The neutron irradiations of the liver showed the highest organ dose absorption in the liver, with appreciably lower doses in other proximal organs. The dose distribution within the irradiated slice exhibited substantial attenuation with increasing depth along the beam path, attenuating to ∼15% of the maximum value at the beam exit side. The gamma irradiation of the liver imparted the highest organ dose to the stomach wall. The dose distribution from the gammas showed a region of dose buildup at the beam entrance, followed by a relatively uniform dose distribution to all of the deep tissue structures, attenuating to ∼75% of the maximum value at the beam exit side. For the breast scans, both the neutron and gamma irradiation registered maximum organ doses in the breasts, with all other organs receiving less than 1% of the breast dose. Effective doses ranged from 0.22 to 0.37 mSv for the neutron scans and 41 to 66 mSv for the gamma scans. Conclusions: Neutron and gamma irradiation of a primary target organ was found to impart the majority of the total dose to the primary target organ (and other large organs) within the beam plane and considerably lower dose to proximal organs outside of the beam. These results also indicate that despite the use of a highly scattering particle such as a neutron, the dose from neutron stimulated emission computed tomography scans is on par with other clinical imaging techniques such as x-ray computed tomography (x-ray CT). Given the high nonuniformity in the dose across an organ during the neutron scan, care must be taken when computing average doses from neutron irradiations. The effective doses from neutron scanning were found to be comparable to x-ray CT. Further technique modifications are needed to reduce the effective dose levels from the gamma scans.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Modification and validation of an analytical source model for external beam radiotherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations
Purpose: A dose calculation tool, which combines the accuracy of the dose planning method (DPM) Monte Carlo code and the versatility of a practical analytical multisource model, which was previously reported has been improved and validated for the Varian 6 and 10 MV linear accelerators (linacs). The calculation tool can be used to calculate doses in advanced clinical application studies. One shortcoming of current clinical trials that report dose from patient plans is the lack of a standardized dose calculation methodology. Because commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) have their own dose calculation algorithms and the clinical trial participant who uses these systems is responsible for commissioning the beam model, variation exists in the reported calculated dose distributions. Today’s modern linac is manufactured to tight specifications so that variability within a linac model is quite low. The expectation is that a single dose calculation tool for a specific linac model can be used to accurately recalculate dose from patient plans that have been submitted to the clinical trial community from any institution. The calculation tool would provide for a more meaningful outcome analysis. Methods: The analytical source model was described by a primary point source, a secondary extra-focal source, and a contaminant electron source. Off-axis energy softening and fluence effects were also included. The additions of hyperbolic functions have been incorporated into the model to correct for the changes in output and in electron contamination with field size. A multileaf collimator (MLC) model is included to facilitate phantom and patient dose calculations. An offset to the MLC leaf positions was used to correct for the rudimentary assumed primary point source. Results: Dose calculations of the depth dose and profiles for field sizes 4 × 4 to 40 × 40 cm agree with measurement within 2% of the maximum dose or 2 mm distance to agreement (DTA) for 95% of the data points tested. The model was capable of predicting the depth of the maximum dose within 1 mm. Anthropomorphic phantom benchmark testing of modulated and patterned MLCs treatment plans showed agreement to measurement within 3% in target regions using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). Using radiochromic film normalized to TLD, a gamma criteria of 3% of maximum dose and 2 mm DTA was applied with a pass rate of least 85% in the high dose, high gradient, and low dose regions. Finally, recalculations of patient plans using DPM showed good agreement relative to a commercial TPS when comparing dose volume histograms and 2D dose distributions. Conclusions: A unique analytical source model coupled to the dose planning method Monte Carlo dose calculation code has been modified and validated using basic beam data and anthropomorphic phantom measurement. While this tool can be applied in general use for a particular linac model, specifically it was developed to provide a singular methodology to independently assess treatment plan dose distributions from those clinical institutions participating in National Cancer Institute trials.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗