984 resultados para PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY
Resumo:
Dose kernel convolution (DK) methods have been proposed to speed up absorbed dose calculations in molecular radionuclide therapy. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of tissue density heterogeneities (TDH) on dosimetry when using a DK method and to propose a simple density-correction method. METHODS: This study has been conducted on 3 clinical cases: case 1, non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with (131)I-tositumomab; case 2, a neuroendocrine tumor treatment simulated with (177)Lu-peptides; and case 3, hepatocellular carcinoma treated with (90)Y-microspheres. Absorbed dose calculations were performed using a direct Monte Carlo approach accounting for TDH (3D-RD), and a DK approach (VoxelDose, or VD). For each individual voxel, the VD absorbed dose, D(VD), calculated assuming uniform density, was corrected for density, giving D(VDd). The average 3D-RD absorbed dose values, D(3DRD), were compared with D(VD) and D(VDd), using the relative difference Δ(VD/3DRD). At the voxel level, density-binned Δ(VD/3DRD) and Δ(VDd/3DRD) were plotted against ρ and fitted with a linear regression. RESULTS: The D(VD) calculations showed a good agreement with D(3DRD). Δ(VD/3DRD) was less than 3.5%, except for the tumor of case 1 (5.9%) and the renal cortex of case 2 (5.6%). At the voxel level, the Δ(VD/3DRD) range was 0%-14% for cases 1 and 2, and -3% to 7% for case 3. All 3 cases showed a linear relationship between voxel bin-averaged Δ(VD/3DRD) and density, ρ: case 1 (Δ = -0.56ρ + 0.62, R(2) = 0.93), case 2 (Δ = -0.91ρ + 0.96, R(2) = 0.99), and case 3 (Δ = -0.69ρ + 0.72, R(2) = 0.91). The density correction improved the agreement of the DK method with the Monte Carlo approach (Δ(VDd/3DRD) < 1.1%), but with a lesser extent for the tumor of case 1 (3.1%). At the voxel level, the Δ(VDd/3DRD) range decreased for the 3 clinical cases (case 1, -1% to 4%; case 2, -0.5% to 1.5%, and -1.5% to 2%). No more linear regression existed for cases 2 and 3, contrary to case 1 (Δ = 0.41ρ - 0.38, R(2) = 0.88) although the slope in case 1 was less pronounced. CONCLUSION: This study shows a small influence of TDH in the abdominal region for 3 representative clinical cases. A simple density-correction method was proposed and improved the comparison in the absorbed dose calculations when using our voxel S value implementation.
Resumo:
[Code du personnel des communes et des établissements publics communaux]
Resumo:
[Code]
Resumo:
Tumors in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients are often proximal to the major blood vessels in the abdomen or neck. In external-beam radiotherapy, these tumors present a challenge because imaging resolution prevents the beam from being targeted to the tumor lesion without also irradiating the artery wall. This problem has led to potentially life-threatening delayed toxicity. Because radioimmunotherapy has resulted in long-term survival of NHL patients, we investigated whether the absorbed dose (AD) to the artery wall in radioimmunotherapy of NHL is of potential concern for delayed toxicity. SPECT resolution is not sufficient to enable dosimetric analysis of anatomic features of the thickness of the aortic wall. Therefore, we present a model of aortic wall toxicity based on data from 4 patients treated with (131)I-tositumomab. METHODS: Four NHL patients with periaortic tumors were administered pretherapeutic (131)I-tositumomab. Abdominal SPECT and whole-body planar images were obtained at 48, 72, and 144 h after tracer administration. Blood-pool activity concentrations were obtained from regions of interest drawn on the heart on the planar images. Tumor and blood activity concentrations, scaled to therapeutic administered activities-both standard and myeloablative-were input into a geometry and tracking model (GEANT, version 4) of the aorta. The simulated energy deposited in the arterial walls was collected and fitted, and the AD and biologic effective dose values to the aortic wall and tumors were obtained for standard therapeutic and hypothetical myeloablative administered activities. RESULTS: Arterial wall ADs from standard therapy were lower (0.6-3.7 Gy) than those typical from external-beam therapy, as were the tumor ADs (1.4-10.5 Gy). The ratios of tumor AD to arterial wall AD were greater for radioimmunotherapy by a factor of 1.9-4.0. For myeloablative therapy, artery wall ADs were in general less than those typical for external-beam therapy (9.4-11.4 Gy for 3 of 4 patients) but comparable for 1 patient (32.6 Gy). CONCLUSION: Blood vessel radiation dose can be estimated using the software package 3D-RD combined with GEANT modeling. The dosimetry analysis suggested that arterial wall toxicity is highly unlikely in standard dose radioimmunotherapy but should be considered a potential concern and limiting factor in myeloablative therapy.
Resumo:
1826 (A5).
Resumo:
1827 (A6).
Resumo:
1823 (A2).
Resumo:
1828 (A7).
