Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse
Previous Article Next Article

Comparison of absorbed fractions of electrons and photons using three kinds of computational phantoms of rat

Source: Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 033702 (2010); doi:10.1063/1.3462793

Published 20 July 2010

EPAPS
KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 87.55.dk
    Dose-volume analysis (radiation therapy treatment planning)
  • 87.55.K-
    Monte Carlo methods in radiation therapy treatment strategy
  • YEAR: 2010
RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
PUBLICATION DATA
ISSN:
1553-9628 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef AIP
Tianwu Xie, Guozhi Zhang, Yun Li, and Qian Liu
Britton Chance Center for Biomedical Photonics, Wuhan National Laboratory for Optoelectronics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, People's Republic of China
Rats have been widely used in radiopharmaceutics researches, making it reasonable to develop fine structured computational models for rat internal dose investigation. In this work, we developed three existing types of computational phantoms based on the same data set of rat, simulated photon and electron particles transport using Monte Carlo method and calculated absorbed fractions for organs. We further compared the dose discrepancies of these three types of phantoms in internal dosimetry and found the stylized phantom might cause an underestimation of the self-absorbed S-factors. The developed phantoms will contribute to the application of computational phantoms in dosimetry studies. ©2010 American Institute of Physics
History: Received 19 May 2010; accepted 14 June 2010; published 20 July 2010
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?APPLAB/97/033702/1

REFERENCES (18)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. H. Zaidi and G. Xu, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 9, 471 (2007).
  2. X. G. Xu and K. F. Eckerman, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 90, 24 (2009).
  3. M. W. Konijnenberg, M. Bijster, E. P. Krenning, and M. De Jong, J. Nucl. Med. 45, 1260 (2004).
  4. M. G. Stabin, T. E. Peterson, G. E. Holburn, and M. A. Emmons, J. Nucl. Med. 47, 655 (2006).
  5. P. H. Peixoto, J. W. Vieira, H. Yoriyaz, and F. R. Lima, Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 5343 (2008).
  6. W. P. Segars, B. M. Tsui, E. C. Frey, G. A. Johnson, and S. S. Berr, Mol. Imaging Biol. 6, 149 (2004).
  7. H. Zaidi and B. M. W. Tsui, Proc. IEEE 97, 1938 (2009).
  8. L. Wu, G. Zhang, Q. M. Luo, and Q. Liu, Med. Phys. 35, 3759 (2008).
  9. T. Xie, D. Han, Y. Liu, J. Sun, and Q. Liu, Med. Phys. 37, 2167 (2010).
  10. G. Zhang, T. Xie, H. Bosmans, and Q. Liu, Proc. IEEE 97, 2006 (2009).
  11. D. B. Pelowitz, Report No. LA-CP-05-369, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2005.
  12. K. E. Goldstone, Clin. Radiol. 41, 220 (1990).
  13. J. Valentin, Ann. ICRP 32, i-265 (2002).
  14. W. E. Bolch, K. F. Eckerman, G. Sgouros, and S. R. Thomas, J. Nucl. Med. 50, 477 (2009).
  15. W. S. Snyder, M. R. Ford, G. G. Warner, and S. B. Watson, MIRD Pamphlet No. 11 (Society of Nuclear Medicine, Oak Ridge, TN, 1975).
  16. J. E. Turner, Health Phys. 88, 520 (2005).
  17. K. T. Jagdish and W. B. Thomas, http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/mird/, 2010.
  18. See supplementary material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3462793 for the ventral-dorsal views and dorsal-ventral views of these three kinds of rat phantoms, the mathematic equations and parameters of the stylized phantom, the photon and electron AF for voxel-based phantom and S-factors for radionuclides I111n, I131, and Y90. [EPAPS]
ADVERTISEMENT