Gap junction channels and cardiac impulse propagation

The role of gap junction channels on cardiac impulse propagation is complex. This review focuses on the differential expression of connexins in the heart and the biophysical properties of gap junction channels under normal and disease conditions. Structural determinants of impulse propagation have been gained from biochemical and immunocytochemical studies performed on tissue extracts and intact cardiac tissue. These have defined the distinctive connexin coexpression patterns and relative levels in different cardiac tissues. Functional determinants of impulse propagation have emerged from electrophysiological experiments carried out on cell pairs. The static properties (channel number and conductance) limit the current flow between adjacent cardiomyocytes and thus set the basic conduction velocity. The dynamic properties (voltage-sensitive gating and kinetics of channels) are responsible for a modulation of the conduction velocity during propagated action potentials. The effect is moderate and depends on the type of Cx and channel. For homomeric-homotypic channels, the influence is small to medium; for homomeric-heterotypic channels, it is medium to strong. Since no data are currently available on heteromeric channels, their influence on impulse propagation is speculative. The modulation by gap junction channels is most prominent in tissues at the boundaries between cardiac tissues such as sinoatrial node-atrial muscle, atrioventricular node-His bundle, His bundle-bundle branch and Purkinje fibers-ventricular muscle. The data predict facilitation of orthodromic propagation.

Collapsed cone convolution and analytical anisotropic algorithm dose calculations compared to VMC++ Monte Carlo simulations in clinical cases

The purpose of this work was to study and quantify the differences in dose distributions computed with some of the newest dose calculation algorithms available in commercial planning systems. The study was done for clinical cases originally calculated with pencil beam convolution (PBC) where large density inhomogeneities were present. Three other dose algorithms were used: a pencil beam like algorithm, the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), a convolution superposition algorithm, collapsed cone convolution (CCC), and a Monte Carlo program, voxel Monte Carlo (VMC++). The dose calculation algorithms were compared under static field irradiations at 6 MV and 15 MV using multileaf collimators and hard wedges where necessary. Five clinical cases were studied: three lung and two breast cases. We found that, in terms of accuracy, the CCC algorithm performed better overall than AAA compared to VMC++, but AAA remains an attractive option for routine use in the clinic due to its short computation times. Dose differences between the different algorithms and VMC++ for the median value of the planning target volume (PTV) were typically 0.4% (range: 0.0 to 1.4%) in the lung and -1.3% (range: -2.1 to -0.6%) in the breast for the few cases we analysed. As expected, PTV coverage and dose homogeneity turned out to be more critical in the lung than in the breast cases with respect to the accuracy of the dose calculation. This was observed in the dose volume histograms obtained from the Monte Carlo simulations.

Conversion of CT numbers into tissue parameters for Monte Carlo dose calculations: a multi-centre study

The conversion of computed tomography (CT) numbers into material composition and mass density data influences the accuracy of patient dose calculations in Monte Carlo treatment planning (MCTP). The aim of our work was to develop a CT conversion scheme by performing a stoichiometric CT calibration. Fourteen dosimetrically equivalent tissue subsets (bins), of which ten bone bins, were created. After validating the proposed CT conversion scheme on phantoms, it was compared to a conventional five bin scheme with only one bone bin. This resulted in dose distributions D(14) and D(5) for nine clinical patient cases in a European multi-centre study. The observed local relative differences in dose to medium were mostly smaller than 5%. The dose-volume histograms of both targets and organs at risk were comparable, although within bony structures D(14) was found to be slightly but systematically higher than D(5). Converting dose to medium to dose to water (D(14) to D(14wat) and D(5) to D(5wat)) resulted in larger local differences as D(5wat) became up to 10% higher than D(14wat). In conclusion, multiple bone bins need to be introduced when Monte Carlo (MC) calculations of patient dose distributions are converted to dose to water.

A multiple source model for 6 MV photon beam dose calculations using Monte Carlo

A multiple source model (MSM) for the 6 MV beam of a Varian Clinac 2300 C/D was developed by simulating radiation transport through the accelerator head for a set of square fields using the GEANT Monte Carlo (MC) code. The corresponding phase space (PS) data enabled the characterization of 12 sources representing the main components of the beam defining system. By parametrizing the source characteristics and by evaluating the dependence of the parameters on field size, it was possible to extend the validity of the model to arbitrary rectangular fields which include the central 3 x 3 cm2 field without additional precalculated PS data. Finally, a sampling procedure was developed in order to reproduce the PS data. To validate the MSM, the fluence, energy fluence and mean energy distributions determined from the original and the reproduced PS data were compared and showed very good agreement. In addition, the MC calculated primary energy spectrum was verified by an energy spectrum derived from transmission measurements. Comparisons of MC calculated depth dose curves and profiles, using original and PS data reproduced by the MSM, agree within 1% and 1 mm. Deviations from measured dose distributions are within 1.5% and 1 mm. However, the real beam leads to some larger deviations outside the geometrical beam area for large fields. Calculated output factors in 10 cm water depth agree within 1.5% with experimentally determined data. In conclusion, the MSM produces accurate PS data for MC photon dose calculations for the rectangular fields specified.

Simple beam models for Monte Carlo photon beam dose calculations in radiotherapy

Monte Carlo (code GEANT) produced 6 and 15 MV phase space (PS) data were used to define several simple photon beam models. For creating the PS data the energy of starting electrons hitting the target was tuned to get correct depth dose data compared to measurements. The modeling process used the full PS information within the geometrical boundaries of the beam including all scattered radiation of the accelerator head. Scattered radiation outside the boundaries was neglected. Photons and electrons were assumed to be radiated from point sources. Four different models were investigated which involved different ways to determine the energies and locations of beam particles in the output plane. Depth dose curves, profiles, and relative output factors were calculated with these models for six field sizes from 5x5 to 40x40cm2 and compared to measurements. Model 1 uses a photon energy spectrum independent of location in the PS plane and a constant photon fluence in this plane. Model 2 takes into account the spatial particle fluence distribution in the PS plane. A constant fluence is used again in model 3, but the photon energy spectrum depends upon the off axis position. Model 4, finally uses the spatial particle fluence distribution and off axis dependent photon energy spectra in the PS plane. Depth dose curves and profiles for field sizes up to 10x10cm2 were not model sensitive. Good agreement between measured and calculated depth dose curves and profiles for all field sizes was reached for model 4. However, increasing deviations were found for increasing field sizes for models 1-3. Large deviations resulted for the profiles of models 2 and 3. This is due to the fact that these models overestimate and underestimate the energy fluence at large off axis distances. Relative output factors consistent with measurements resulted only for model 4.