RETRACTED: Surface dose rate variations in planar and curved geometries of 106Ru/106Rh plaque sources for ocular tumors

Bakshi, A.K.; Shrivastava, Vandana; Chattaraj, Arghya; Samuel, K.G.; Selvam, T. Palani; Sapra, B.K.; Sinharoy, Prithwish; Banerjee, Dayamoy; Sugilala, G.; Manohar, S. Β.; Kaushik, C.P.

doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.08.001

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main reason for the observed steep dose gradient for COMS and CGD plaques is the relatively low energy nature of the emitted radiations from 125 I and 106 Ru radioactive sources. In this regard, the maximum electron energy which is emitted during the different beta-minus decay channels of 106 Ru is about 3.5 MeV [49]. The mean emitted photon energy from 125 I radioactive material is also about 28.37 keV [50].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

DVH analysis for brachytherapy plaques and proton beam during intraocular tumor treatment using 3D film dosimetry

Eidi

Aghamiri

Baghani

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proton therapy and plaque-based brachytherapy are considered efficient radiotherapy modalities for intraocular tumor irradiation. The current study aims to measure and compare the dosimetric features of these methods through a film dosimetry approach inside an eyeball phantom. A 3D-printed PLA (polylactic acid)-based eyeball phantom was applied for phantom irradiation. For brachytherapy, COMS and CGD plaques respectively containing the 125I and 106Ru radioactive sources were employed. Proton irradiation was performed using the clinical beamline of the CNAO oncological hadron therapy center. PDD (percentage depth dose), transverse dose profile, 2D and 3D dose distribution, as well as DVH (dose volume histogram) data relevant to the tumor volume and surrounding healthy tissues were measured for applied treatment techniques using Gafchromic EBT3 film dosimetry approach and compared together. A more uniform dose distribution inside the tumor volume was found in the case of the proton beam concerning two other techniques. Furthermore, a proton beam can better spare healthy organs distributed around the tumor region. Besides, COMS plaque can lead to better clinical outcomes concerning CGD plaque. Viewpoint to the dose uniformity inside the target volume as well as sparing the healthy tissues, proton therapy would be the optimal choice. On the other hand, the photon beam can be preferred to the electron beam if proton therapy facilities are not available. Nevertheless, based on the importance of the healthy organ which should be spared, the COMS or CGD plaque can be selected for radiotherapy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%