A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Evaluation of clinically applied treatment beams with respect to bunker shielding parameters for a Cyberknife M6. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Compared to a conventional linear accelerator, the Cyberknife (CK) is a unique system with respect to radiation protection shielding and the variety and number of non-coplanar beams are two key components regarding this aspect. In this work, a framework to assess the direction distribution and modulation factor (MF) of clinically applied treatment beams of a CyberKnife M6 is developed. Database filtering options allow studying the influence of different parameters such as collimator types, treatment sites or different bunker sizes. A distribution of monitor units (MU) is generated by projecting treatment beams onto the walls, floor and ceiling of the CyberKnife bunker. This distribution is found to be highly heterogeneous and depending, among other parameters, on the bunker size. For our bunker design, 10%-13% of the MUs are delivered to the right and left wall, each. The floor receives more than 64% of the applied MUs, while the wall behind the patient's head is not hit by primary treatment beams. Between 0% and 5% of the total MUs are delivered to the wall at the patient's feet. This number highly depends on the treatment site, e.g., for extracranial patients no beams hit that wall. Collimator choice was found to have minor influence on the distribution of MUs. On the other hand, the MF depends on the collimator type as well as on the treatment site. The MFs (delivered MU/prescribed dose) for all treatments, all MLC treatments, cranial and extracranial treatments are 8.3, 6.4, 7.7, and 9.9 MU/cGy, respectively. The developed framework allows assessing and monitoring important parameters regarding radiation protection of a CK-M6 using the actually applied treatment beams. Furthermore, it enables evaluating different clinical and constructional situations using the filtering options.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768034PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12215DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

treatment beams
20
applied treatment
12
clinically applied
8
treatment
8
radiation protection
8
filtering options
8
mus delivered
8
wall patient's
8
treatment site
8
beams
7

Similar Publications