4.7 Article

Effect of Voxel Size and Computation Method on Tc-99m MAA SPECT/CT-Based Dose Estimation for Y-90 Microsphere Therapy

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 28, 期 11, 页码 1754-1758

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2009.2022753

关键词

Microsphere therapy; Monte Carlo dosimetry

资金

  1. M. D. Anderson Imaging Physics Residency Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of selective internal radiation therapy for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastases using Y-90 labeled microspheres has become an effective and widely used treatment regimen. However, dosimetric evaluations of this treatment are still primitive as uniform distribution models based only on injected activity are often used. This investigation attempts to quantify the effectiveness of several sophisticated patient-specific techniques which utilize the source distribution of Tc-99m MAA simulation studies to perform voxelized dosimetric computations. Among these techniques are complete Monte-Carlo radiation transport computation in patient-specific CT-based voxel phantoms, local energy deposition in patient specific phantoms and kernel transport techniques in water. Each technique was evaluated using three different phantom voxel dimensions and SPECT reconstruction matrix sizes. Dose evaluation results using all methods were compared to the exact solution, obtained using fully 3-D Monte-Carlo simulations with source distribution based not on SPECT data, but on the injected activity and exact boundaries of the anthropomorphic phantom used in the study. The results of this study show that at large voxel sizes and using SPECT reconstructions with a small matrix size (64 x 64), Monte-Carlo and local deposition methods are nearly equivalent. However, using a large SPECT reconstruction matrix (256 x 256) the local deposition method is significantly more accurate than full 3-D Monte-Carlo transport, and with a negligible computational burden.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据