4.4 Article

Computational evaluation of changes in ionizing radiation dose distribution in tissues caused by EM applicators when external radiation and hyperthermia act simultaneously

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTHERMIA
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 343-352

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02656730600661750

Keywords

microstrip applicators; simultaneous radiation and hyperthermia; ionizing radiation absorption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The presented theoretical study investigates the influence of CFMA-like electromagnetic microstrip applicators (MAs)on ionizing radiation intensity and depth radiation dose distribution (DRDD)in irradiated tissues which are tightly covered with a MA. Methods: It is shown that at relatively low photon energy (< 200 keV) the MA does not affect noticeable the profile of the DRDD curve and does not lead to skin overdosing. Nevertheless, it significantly (up to 20-35%) decreases the low energy ionizing radiation intensity. For high energy photons (> 1 MeV), on the contrary, the decrease of radiation intensity, caused by the MA, is small (3-10%), but the profile of the DRDD curve, calculated by means of the Monte-Carlo method, is significantly affected. Results: The radiation dose maximum is shifted to the skin, resulting in possible skin overdosing. Radiation absorption characteristics of MA are calculated and compared with published parameters of EM horn and US applicators now in use for external simultaneous radiation and hyperthermia (ESRH) procedures. The MA provides the minor ionizing radiation absorption. Due to it and owing to their conformability with the tissue surface the MAs would not require any additional means or devices to be used for ESRH treatment procedures with any common ionizing radiation equipment. Conclusions: The necessity of development means for decreasing the time of radiation equipment occupation during ESRH procedures is pointed out.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available