“…Overall, the differences between the calculated values and the measured values (in the solid water and the heterogeneous phantom) were 0.5–2% in soft tissues, 2–5% in lung, and 2–12% in bone. These data are compatible with other studies (see Table for a comparison with reference). The maximal values were taken as the uncertainties in the effective dose calculation.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The uncertainties are higher compared to previous results obtained for CBCT imaging doses (uncertainty of about 5%) . This is mainly due to the uncertainty related to the variability of the number of images (fixed by the protocol in CBCT) acquired during a treatment fraction as well as the multiples choices of the imaging isocenter (always fixed at the tumor center in CBCT).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…There is no reference in the literature about the effective dose from IGRT for CyberKnife units. In order to put the results in perspective, Table II presents our results and the results obtained for CBCT IGRT protocols …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A detailed description of effective dose calculation is presented in a previous publication. 14 The method is shortly summarized below (Fig. 2).…”
Section: E Dose Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to put the results in perspective, Table II presents our results and the results obtained for CBCT IGRT protocols. 14 Table III presents the ESD calculated for pelvis cases with our CyberKnife IGRT X-ray beam model and the measured data found in the literature and Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the effective dose and the ESD calculated for our cohort of pelvic patients.…”
Section: D Organ Dose Effective Dose and Entrance Surface Dosementioning
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to calculate dose distributions from CyberKnife imageguided radiation therapy (IGRT) for brain, H&N, lung, and pelvis treatment regions and use them to extract the corresponding effective dose and estimate-related risk. Methods: We developed a CyberKnife IGRT kV beam model in a standard treatment planning system and validated it against measurements in heterogeneous phantoms. Five brain, five head and neck, five thorax, and 10 (five male and five female) pelvis patient computed tomographies (CTs) were contoured. The dose distribution resulting from different CyberKnife IGRT protocols was calculated. From them, the effective dose was calculated according to ICRP publication Nr 103, using the average dose to contoured organs. The corresponding risk factors were calculated. Entrance surface dose (ESD) was also calculated and compared with existing data. Results: The maximum effective dose produced by CyberKnife IGRT protocols was 0.8 mSv (brain), 1.9 mSv (H&N), 20.2 (pelvis), and 42.4 mSv (thorax) per fraction for a risk estimate of 0.004% (brain), 0.01% (H&N), 0.1% (pelvis), and 0.2% (thorax). Calculated ESD were compatible with existing data. Conclusions: Dose calculation models for CyberKnife IGRT kV beams were implemented in a clinical treatment planning system and validated in water and heterogeneous phantoms. We determined the effective dose and the related risk estimate resulting from CyberKnife IGRT protocols for brain, head and neck, thorax, and pelvis cases. The effective doses calculated for CyberKnife IGRT protocols were similar to those obtained for cone beam CT protocols on conventional C-arm linear accelerators, except for extreme irradiation conditions for thorax cases (140 kV X-ray tube tension).
“…Overall, the differences between the calculated values and the measured values (in the solid water and the heterogeneous phantom) were 0.5–2% in soft tissues, 2–5% in lung, and 2–12% in bone. These data are compatible with other studies (see Table for a comparison with reference). The maximal values were taken as the uncertainties in the effective dose calculation.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The uncertainties are higher compared to previous results obtained for CBCT imaging doses (uncertainty of about 5%) . This is mainly due to the uncertainty related to the variability of the number of images (fixed by the protocol in CBCT) acquired during a treatment fraction as well as the multiples choices of the imaging isocenter (always fixed at the tumor center in CBCT).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…There is no reference in the literature about the effective dose from IGRT for CyberKnife units. In order to put the results in perspective, Table II presents our results and the results obtained for CBCT IGRT protocols …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A detailed description of effective dose calculation is presented in a previous publication. 14 The method is shortly summarized below (Fig. 2).…”
Section: E Dose Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to put the results in perspective, Table II presents our results and the results obtained for CBCT IGRT protocols. 14 Table III presents the ESD calculated for pelvis cases with our CyberKnife IGRT X-ray beam model and the measured data found in the literature and Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the effective dose and the ESD calculated for our cohort of pelvic patients.…”
Section: D Organ Dose Effective Dose and Entrance Surface Dosementioning
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to calculate dose distributions from CyberKnife imageguided radiation therapy (IGRT) for brain, H&N, lung, and pelvis treatment regions and use them to extract the corresponding effective dose and estimate-related risk. Methods: We developed a CyberKnife IGRT kV beam model in a standard treatment planning system and validated it against measurements in heterogeneous phantoms. Five brain, five head and neck, five thorax, and 10 (five male and five female) pelvis patient computed tomographies (CTs) were contoured. The dose distribution resulting from different CyberKnife IGRT protocols was calculated. From them, the effective dose was calculated according to ICRP publication Nr 103, using the average dose to contoured organs. The corresponding risk factors were calculated. Entrance surface dose (ESD) was also calculated and compared with existing data. Results: The maximum effective dose produced by CyberKnife IGRT protocols was 0.8 mSv (brain), 1.9 mSv (H&N), 20.2 (pelvis), and 42.4 mSv (thorax) per fraction for a risk estimate of 0.004% (brain), 0.01% (H&N), 0.1% (pelvis), and 0.2% (thorax). Calculated ESD were compatible with existing data. Conclusions: Dose calculation models for CyberKnife IGRT kV beams were implemented in a clinical treatment planning system and validated in water and heterogeneous phantoms. We determined the effective dose and the related risk estimate resulting from CyberKnife IGRT protocols for brain, head and neck, thorax, and pelvis cases. The effective doses calculated for CyberKnife IGRT protocols were similar to those obtained for cone beam CT protocols on conventional C-arm linear accelerators, except for extreme irradiation conditions for thorax cases (140 kV X-ray tube tension).
Diagnostic radiology is a leading cause of man-made radiation exposure to the population. It is an important factor in many epidemiological studies as variable of interest or as potential confounder. The effective dose as a risk related quantity is the most often stated patient dose. Nevertheless, there exists no comprehensive quantification model for retrospective analysis for this quantity. This paper gives a catalog of effective dose values for common and rare examinations and demonstrates how to modify the dose values to adapt them to different calendar years using a quantification concept already used for retrospective analysis of the red bone marrow dose. It covers the time period of 1946 to 1995 and allows considering technical development and different practical standards over time. For an individual dose assessment, if the dose area product is known, factors are given for most examinations to convert the dose area product into the effective dose. Additionally factors are stated for converting the effective dose into the red bone marrow dose or vice versa.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.