Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of dental implant materials with different physical densities on dose distribution for head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning. Methods: Titanium (Ti)...
详细信息
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of dental implant materials with different physical densities on dose distribution for head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning. Methods: Titanium (Ti), Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), Zirconia (Y-TZP), Zirconium oxide (ZrO2), Alumina (Al2O3) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) dental implant materials were used for determination of implant material effect on dose distribution. Dental implant effect was investigated by using pencilbeamconvolution (PBC) algorithm of Eclipse treatment planning systems (TPS) and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation technique. 6 MV photon beam of the Varian 2300 C/D linear accelerator was simulated by EGSnrc-based beamnrc MC code system. Results: Reasonable consistency was determined for percentage depth dose (PDD) curves between MC simulation and water phantom measurements at 6.4 MeV initial electron energy. The consistency between modelled linear accelerator PDD curve calculations and water-phantom PDD measurements were compatible within 1 % range. The dose increase in front of the dental implant calculated by MC simulation is in the range of 0.4-20.2%. We found by MC and PBC calculations that the differences in dose increase in front of the dental implant materials is in the range of 0.1-17.2% and is dependent on the physical density of the dental implant. Conclusions: Dose increase for Zirconia was noted to be maximum while PEEK implant dose increase was minimum among the whole dental implant materials studied. This study revealed that the Eclipse TPS PBC algorithm could not accurately estimate the backscatter radiation from dental implant materials.
Purpose: Retrospective analysis of 3D clinical treatment plans to investigate qualitative, possible, clinical consequences of the use of PBC versus AAA. Methods: The 3D dose distributions of 80 treatment plans at four...
详细信息
Purpose: Retrospective analysis of 3D clinical treatment plans to investigate qualitative, possible, clinical consequences of the use of PBC versus AAA. Methods: The 3D dose distributions of 80 treatment plans at four different tumour sites, produced using PBC algorithm, were recalculated using AAA and the same number of monitor units provided by PBC and clinically delivered to each patient;the consequences of the difference on the dose-effect relations for normal tissue injury were studied by comparing different NTCP model/parameters extracted from a review of published studies. In this study the AAA dose calculation is considered as benchmark data. The paired Student t-test was used for statistical comparison of all results obtained from the use of the two algorithms. Results: In the prostate plans, the AAA predicted lower NTCP value (NTCPAAA) for the risk of late rectal bleeding for each of the seven combinations of NTCP parameters, the maximum mean decrease was 2.2%. In the head-and-neck treatments, each combination of parameters used for the risk of xerostemia from irradiation of the parotid glands involved lower NTCPAAA, that varied from 12.8% (sd=3.0%) to 57.5% (sd=4.0%), while when the PBC algorithm was used the NTCPPBC's ranging was from 15.2% (sd=2.7%) to 63.8% (sd=3.8%), according the combination of parameters used;the differences were statistically significant. Also NTCPAAA regarding the risk of radiation pneumonitis in the lung treatments was found to be lower than NTCPPBC for each of the eight sets of NTCP parameters;the maximum mean decrease was 4.5%. A mean increase of 4.3% was found when the NTCPAAA was calculated by the parameters evaluated from dose distribution calculated by a convolution-superposition (CS) algorithm. A markedly different pattern was observed for the risk relating to the development of pneumonitis following breast treatments: the AAA predicted higher NTCP value. The mean NTCPAAA varied from 0.2% (sd = 0.1%) to 2.1% (sd = 0.3%), w
暂无评论