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.
Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine regarding the Impact of Implementing the 2004 Task Group 43 Report on Dose Specification for and Interstitial Brachytherapy
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.1884925
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/5/10.1118/1.1884925
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/5/10.1118/1.1884925

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Plots of mean dose ratios, and corresponding standard deviation as a function of reference dose in units of for sample clinical implant No. 1. The means and standard deviations are averages of the calculation-point dose ratios falling in dose bins with widths of approximately 12 Gy. The right upper and lower left graphs compare the prescription dose parameters and formalism [Eq. (11)] to the heavy and light seed reference dose parameters, respectively. The upper left graph compares the anisotropy constant prescription formalism ( of 2004 TG-43) to the Eq. (11) reference dose formalism using parameters in both cases.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Plots of the dose ratio, as a function of position in the transverse (top) and sagittal (bottom) planes bisecting the center of the implanted volume for sample clinical implant No. 1. The prescription dose parameters and formalism [Eq. (11)] are compared to the light seed reference dose parameters.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Plot illustrating the variation of the delivered dose for prescribed doses of 115 and 125 Gy as a function of time for the Model 200 source. After 2000, delivered doses are plotted for prescribed doses of 115 Gy (solid line) and 125 Gy (broken line). For illustration only, we have assumed . For post- implants, the plot assumes that the AAPM preferred 1D dose-calculation model is used [Eq. (6)].

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Prescription and reference dose calculation parameters for the model 200 Source. March 2004 denotes the date on which the revised TG-43 recommendations were implemented.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Dummy TG-43 dose calculation parameters for the Model 200 Pd-103 source.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Prescription and reference dose calculation parameters. March 2004 denotes the date on which the revised TG-43 recommendations were implemented.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Ratios of administered-to-prescribed dose, , as a function of year and dosimetry data tD for Implants. Bold indicates current analysis, using CIA values. March 2004 denotes the date on which the revised TG-43 recommendations were implemented.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Ratios of administered-to-prescribed dose, , as a function of year and dosimetry data tD for implants. Bold indicates current analysis, using GFSA method.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/5/10.1118/1.1884925
2005-04-27
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine regarding the Impact of Implementing the 2004 Task Group 43 Report on Dose Specification for Pd103 and I125 Interstitial Brachytherapy
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/5/10.1118/1.1884925
10.1118/1.1884925
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM