Biomedical subjects

W Newhauser

Publications and source records attributed to W Newhauser.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Virtual commissioning of a treatment planning system for proton therapy of ocular cancers.

The virtual commissioning of a treatment planning system (TPS) for ocular proton beam therapy was performed using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and a model of a double-scattering ocular treatment nozzle. The simulations produced both the input data required by the TPS and the dose distributions to validate the analytical predictions from the TPS. An MC simulation of a typical ocular melanoma treatment was compared with the TPS predictions, revealing generally good agreement in the absorbed dose distribution. However, in the depth-dose profiles, differences >5% existed in the proximal region of all validation cases considered. Comparison of the radiation coverage at or above the 90% dose level, showed that MC calculated coverage was 82% and 68% of the coverage calculated by the TPS in two planes intersecting the tumour.

Body Burden↗

PubMed2005

106Ru/106Rh plaque and proton radiotherapy for ocular melanoma: a comparative dosimetric study.

The objective of this study was to perform comparative dosimetric studies of both 106Ru/106Rh plaque brachytherapy and external beam proton therapy proposed for ocular treatments at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. These modalities were also compared with traditional 125I plaque brachytherapy. Using a standardised eye model with a representative ocular melanoma tumour, the relative dose distributions within the tumour and surrounding tissue were calculated using the Monte Carlo code MCNPX. Published absorbed dose distributions benchmarked the Monte Carlo models. Results indicate that the proton beam provided superior dose uniformity within the tumour volume, whereas the dose distribution from 106Ru/106Rh was more heterogeneous. Relative to 125I COMS plaque, both 106Ru/106Rh and protons have shown more confined dose distributions to the tumour volume in this situation, thus sparing other critical ocular structures. For protons, it has been shown that only doses lower than the maximum dose are delivered outside the tumour volume. Depending on the clinical situation, this may aid in the sparing of critical structures located in the sclera and optic disc boundary. The Monte Carlo model's statistical uncertainties of the mean dose estimates for the 106Ru/106Rh plaque and proton beam were 3 and 2.5%, respectively.

Body Burden↗

PubMed1999

Proton dosimetry intercomparison based on the ICRU report 59 protocol.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A new protocol for calibration of proton beams was established by the ICRU in report 59 on proton dosimetry. In this paper we report the results of an international proton dosimetry intercomparison, which was held at Loma Linda University Medical Center. The goals of the intercomparison were, first, to estimate the level of consistency in absorbed dose delivered to patients if proton beams at various clinics were calibrated with the new ICRU protocol, and second, to evaluate the differences in absorbed dose determination due to differences in 60Co-based ionization chamber calibration factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven institutions participated in the intercomparison. Measurements were performed in a polystyrene phantom at a depth of 10.27 cm water equivalent thickness in a 6-cm modulated proton beam with an accelerator energy of 155 MeV and an incident energy of approximately 135 MeV. Most participants used ionization chambers calibrated in terms of exposure or air kerma. Four ionization chambers had 60Co-based calibration in terms of absorbed dose-to-water. Two chambers were calibrated in a 60Co beam at the NIST both in terms of air kerma and absorbed dose-to-water to provide a comparison of ionization chambers with different calibrations. RESULTS: The intercomparison showed that use of the ICRU report 59 protocol would result in absorbed doses being delivered to patients at their participating institutions to within +/-0.9% (one standard deviation). The maximum difference between doses determined by the participants was found to be 2.9%. Differences between proton doses derived from the measurements with ionization chambers with N(K)-, or N(W) - calibration type depended on chamber type. CONCLUSIONS: Using ionization chambers with 60Co calibration factors traceable to standard laboratories and the ICRU report 59 protocol, a distribution of stated proton absorbed dose is achieved with a difference less than 3%. The ICRU protocol should be adopted for clinical proton beam calibration. A comparison of proton doses derived from measurements with different chambers indicates that the difference in results cannot be explained only by differences in 60Co calibration factors.

Algorithms↗