4.6 Article

A feasibility study to calculate unshielded fetal doses to pregnant patients in 6-MV photon treatments using Monte Carlo methods and anatomically realistic phantoms

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 3054-3061

出版社

AMER ASSOC PHYSICISTS MEDICINE AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1118/1.2938519

关键词

Monte Carlo; TG-36; fetal dose; radiation protection

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA116743, R01CA116743] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Monte Carlo-based procedure to assess fetal doses from 6-MV external photon beam radiation treatments has been developed to improve upon existing techniques that are based on AAPM Task Group Report 36 published in 1995 [M. Stovall , Med. Phys. 22, 63-82 (1995)]. Anatomically realistic models of the pregnant patient representing 3-, 6-, and 9-month gestational stages were implemented into the MCNPX code together with a detailed accelerator model that is capable of simulating scattered and leakage radiation from the accelerator head. Absorbed doses to the fetus were calculated for six different treatment plans for sites above the fetus and one treatment plan for fibrosarcoma in the knee. For treatment plans above the fetus, the fetal doses tended to increase with increasing stage of gestation. This was due to the decrease in distance between the fetal body and field edge with increasing stage of gestation. For the treatment field below the fetus, the absorbed doses tended to decrease with increasing gestational stage of the pregnant patient, due to the increasing size of the fetus and relative constant distance between the field edge and fetal body for each stage. The absorbed doses to the fetus for all treatment plans ranged from a maximum of 30.9 cGy to the 9-month fetus to 1.53 cGy to the 3-month fetus. The study demonstrates the feasibility to accurately determine the absorbed organ doses in the mother and fetus as part of the treatment planning and eventually in risk management. (C) 2008 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

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

4.6
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