Skip Navigation

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 116(1-4):454-460; doi:10.1093/rpd/nci266
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mourtada, F.
Right arrow Articles by Newhauser, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mourtada, F.
Right arrow Articles by Newhauser, W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

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

F. Mourtada*, N. Koch and W. Newhauser

Radiation Physics Department, Box 94, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA

* Corresponding author: fmourtad{at}mdanderson.org

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.