SU‐F‐T‐28: Evaluation of BEBIG HDR Co‐60 After‐Loading System for Skin Cancer Treatment Using Conical Surface Applicator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the possibility of utilizing the BEBIG HDR 60Co remote after‐loading system for malignant skin surface treatment using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation technique. Methods: First TG‐43 parameters of BEBIG‐Co‐60 and Nucletron Ir‐192‐mHDR‐V2 brachytherapy sources were simulated using MCNP6 code to benchmark the sources against the literature. Second a conical tungsten‐alloy with 3‐cm diameter of Planning‐Target‐Volume (PTV) at surface for use with a single stepping HDR source is designed. The HDR source is modeled parallel to treatment plane at the center of the conical applicator with a source surface distance (SSD) of 1.5‐cm and a removable plastic end‐cap with a 1‐mm thickness. Third, MC calculated dose distributions from HDR Co‐60 for conical surface applicator were compared with the simulated data using HDR Ir‐192 source. The initial calculations were made with the same conical surface applicator (standard‐applicator) dimensions as the ones used with the Ir‐192 system. Fourth, the applicator wall‐thickness for the Co‐60 system was increased (doubled) to diminish leakage dose to levels received when using the Ir‐192 system. With this geometry, percentage depth dose (PDD), and relative 2D‐dose profiles in transverse/coronal planes were normalized at 3‐mm prescription‐depth evaluated along the central axis. Results: PDD for Ir‐192 and Co‐60 were similar with standard and thick‐walled applicator. 2D‐relative dose distribution of Co‐60, inside the standard‐conical‐applicator, generated higher penumbra (7.6%). For thick‐walled applicator, it created smaller penumbra (<4%) compared to Ir‐192 source in the standard‐conicalapplicator. Dose leakage outside of thick‐walled applicator with Co‐60 source was approximately equal (≤3%) with standard applicator using Ir‐192 source. Conclusion: Skin cancer treatment with equal quality can be performed with Co‐60 source and thick‐walled conical applicators instead of Ir‐192 with standard applicators. These conical surface applicator must be used with a protective plastic end‐cap to eliminate electron contamination and over‐dosage of the skin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".