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.
Dosimetric effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for and prostate implants
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.1897466
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/8/10.1118/1.1897466
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/8/10.1118/1.1897466

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Dose distribution in unit of in the transverse plane for the idealized model (83 seeds uniformly distributed in an ellipsoid-shaped prostate.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Total percent dose differences between line-source kernel superposition (LSKS) and full Monte Carlo simulation (FMCS) for the (top) and (bottom) idealized implants. Dots show statistically significant differences.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Dose volume histograms of the prostate ( and idealized implants). FMCS (solid line) is compared with PSKS (squares) and LSKS (crosses). For both implants is equal to 100 Gy.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(a) Prostate, rectum, and urethra contours for patient 1 (preprocedure implant with 67 seeds represented by dots). (b) Isodose lines in unit of in the transverse plane for the -based preprocedure implant. The discretized volumes of the prostate, prostate margin, rectum, and urethra are shown.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Histogram of total (top), primary (middle), and scattered (bottom) dose differences [Eq. (1)] in the prostate volume for patient 1 (-based preprocedure implant).

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Dose volume histograms of (a) patient 1 (-based preprocedure implant) and (b) patient 2 (-based postprocedure implant). FMCS (solid lines) is compared with PSKS (squares) and LSKS (crosses) methods.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Average of absolute primary , scattered , and total percent dose differences (PSKS vs FMCS and LSKS vs FMCS) for the idealized implant. See Eq. (2). Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Average of absolute total percent dose differences (PSKS vs FMCS and LSKS vs FMCS) for the pre- and post- procedure implants. See Eq. (2). Standard deviations are given in parentheses. Results for colinear vs randomly oriented seeds are presented.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Prostate volume fractions (%) receiving 80, 90, 100, 150, and 200% of the prescribed dose. The prescribed doses are 85 and 145 Gy for patient 1 (Pre-procedure implant with 67 seeds) and Patient 2 (Postprocedure implant with 97 seeds), respectively.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Doses (Gy) covering 80, 90, and 100% of the prostate volume. The prostate volumes are 49.6 and for patient 1 ( Preprocedure implant) and patient 2 ( Postprocedure implant), respectively.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/8/10.1118/1.1897466
2005-07-25
2014-04-25
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Dosimetric effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for Pd103 and I125 prostate implants
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/32/8/10.1118/1.1897466
10.1118/1.1897466
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM