Skip Navigation

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 115(1-4):159-163; doi:10.1093/rpd/nci224
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 ISI Web of Science
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 (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Koch, N.
Right arrow Articles by Newhauser, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Koch, N.
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

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

N. Koch* and W. Newhauser

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 130, The University of Texas, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA

* Corresponding author: nckoch{at}mdanderson.org

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.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
J. C. Polf, W. D. Newhauser, and U. Titt
Patient neutron dose equivalent exposures outside of the proton therapy treatment field
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 20, 2005; 115(1-4): 154 - 158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.