Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi · 2023
[Verification of Dose Distribution in Cervical Cancer Brachytherapy Using Metal and Plastic Applicators].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tomita Fumihiro, Fuse Hiraku, Fujisaki Tatsuya, Yasue Kenji, Miyakawa Sin, Ikoma Hideaki, Yoshizawa Tomoyuki, Oyama Katsuhiko, Oyama Satoshi, Okumura Toshiyuki, Tamaki Yoshio
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To validate the point-A dose and dose distribution of metal and resin applicators in comparison with those of TG-43U1.
METHODS: The metal and resin applicators consisting of tandem and ovoid were modeled by the egs_brachy. The doses to point A and dose distributions considering each applicator were calculated and compared to those of TG-43U1.
RESULTS: The dose to point A considering the metal applicator was 3.2% lower than that of TG-43U1, but there was no difference in the dose to point A considering the resin applicator. The dose distribution considering the metal applicator was lower than that of TG-43U1 at all calculation points, but there was no difference in the dose distribution considering the resin applicator at almost all calculation points.
CONCLUSION: In this study, the dose distribution considering the metal applicator was lower than that of TG-43U1 at all calculation points, but there was no difference in the dose distribution considering the resin applicator at almost all calculation points. Therefore, TG-43U1 can accurately calculate the dose distribution when changing from the metal applicator to the resin applicator.
METHODS: The metal and resin applicators consisting of tandem and ovoid were modeled by the egs_brachy. The doses to point A and dose distributions considering each applicator were calculated and compared to those of TG-43U1.
RESULTS: The dose to point A considering the metal applicator was 3.2% lower than that of TG-43U1, but there was no difference in the dose to point A considering the resin applicator. The dose distribution considering the metal applicator was lower than that of TG-43U1 at all calculation points, but there was no difference in the dose distribution considering the resin applicator at almost all calculation points.
CONCLUSION: In this study, the dose distribution considering the metal applicator was lower than that of TG-43U1 at all calculation points, but there was no difference in the dose distribution considering the resin applicator at almost all calculation points. Therefore, TG-43U1 can accurately calculate the dose distribution when changing from the metal applicator to the resin applicator.