1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
M: A sub-minute Monte Carlo dose calculation engine for prostate implants
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2126822
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/12/10.1118/1.2126822
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/12/10.1118/1.2126822

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Energy spectrum of photons emitted by the (Symmetra model I25.S06) seed.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Idealized implant with 83 (or ) seeds, uniformly distributed inside a ellipsoid-like prostate.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Local dose differences (%) between MCPI and MCNP5 for the -based idealized implant in the plan (top) and plan (bottom). The prostate boundary is represented by a dashed line.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Dose volume histograms of the prostate, rectum wall, and urethra for patient 2 (postimplant with 97 randomly oriented seeds). MCNP5 and MCPI results are compared.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Dose volume histogram for a prostate with 5% calcified volume. MCPI and MCNP5 results are compared.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Histogram of percent local dose differences due to the interseed attenuation effect. Results for the and idealized implants are shown.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Effect of interseed attenuation on prostate DVH for and idealized implants: real seeds (solid line) vs water-made seeds (dots).

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Effect of tissue composition on the prostate DVH for the (a) and (b) idealized implants. Solid line: all organs are made of water; squares: all organs are made of average male soft tissue (AMST); crosses: all organs are made of skeletal muscle (SM); Stars: the prostate is made of SM and surrounding tissue is made of AMST.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Effects of prostate calcifications on the prostate DVH for patient 1 (a) and patient 2 (b). Results for 0%, 1%, 2%, and 5% calcified volume fractions are shown. Results with water-made seeds and 0% calcifications are presented also.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Effects of prostate calcifications on DVHs of the rectum (a) and urethra (b) for patient 2.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Figure of merit (FOM) of the MCPI and MCNP5 codes for idealized and real prostate implants with 2- and 1-mm voxels. The inverse of FOM is the time in minutes required for 1% average statistical uncertainty.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Dose covering 100%, 90%, and 80% of the prostate for idealized implants (83 or uniformly distributed seeds).

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Composition and density of tissue used to model the prostate and surrounding tissue. Definitions are taken from ICRU Report 44 (Ref. 12).

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Effects of prostate calcifications on , , and of the prostate of patient 1 (preimplant with 67 seeds) and patient 2 (postimplant with 97 seeds). Percent differences (vs 0% calcification case) are given in parentheses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/12/10.1118/1.2126822
2005-11-17
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: MCPI©: A sub-minute Monte Carlo dose calculation engine for prostate implants
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/12/10.1118/1.2126822
10.1118/1.2126822
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM