A CT‐based analytical dose calculation method for HDR brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article presents an analytical dose calculation method for high-dose-rate 192Ir brachytherapy, taking into account the effects of inhomogeneities and reduced photon backscatter near the skin. The adequacy of the Task Group 43 (TG-43) two-dimensional formalism for treatment planning is also assessed. METHODS: The proposed method uses material composition and density data derived from computed tomography images. The primary and scatter dose distributions for each dwell position are calculated first as if the patient is an infinite water phantom. This is done using either TG-43 or a database of Monte Carlo (MC) dose distributions. The latter can be used to account for the effects of shielding in water. Subsequently, corrections for photon attenuation, scatter, and spectral variations along medium- or low-Z inhomogeneities are made according to the radiological paths determined by ray tracing. The scatter dose is then scaled by a correction factor that depends on the distances between the point of interest, the body contour, and the source position. Dose calculations are done for phantoms with tissue and lead inserts, as well as patient plans for head-and-neck, esophagus, and MammoSite balloon breast brachytherapy treatments. Gamma indices are evaluated using a dose-difference criterion of 3% and a distance-to-agreement criterion of 2 mm. PTRAN_CT MC calculations are used as the reference dose distributions. RESULTS: For the phantom with tissue and lead inserts, the percentages of the voxels of interest passing the gamma criteria (Pgamma > or = 1) are 100% for the analytical calculation and 91% for TG-43. For the breast patient plan, TG-43 overestimates the target volume receiving the prescribed dose by 4% and the dose to the hottest 0.1 cm3 of the skin by 9%, whereas the analytical and MC results agree within 0.4%. Pgamma > or = 1 are 100% and 48% for the analytical and TG-43 calculations, respectively. For the head-and-neck and esophagus patient plans, Pgamma > or = 1 are > or = 99% for both calculation methods. CONCLUSIONS: A correction-based dose calculation method has been validated for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy. Its high calculation efficiency makes it feasible for use in treatment planning. Because tissue inhomogeneity effects are small and primary dose predominates in the near-source region, TG-43 is adequate for target dose estimation provided shielding and contrast solution are not used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".