| Home | [31–40] << 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 >> [51–60] |
|
Peppa, V., Thomson, R. M., Enger, S. A., Fonseca, G. P., Lee, C. N., Lucero, J. N. E., et al. (2023). A MC-based anthropomorphic test case for commissioning model-based dose calculation in interstitial breast 192-Ir HDR brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 50(7), 4675–4687.
Abstract: PurposeTo provide the first clinical test case for commissioning of Ir-192 brachytherapy model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) according to the AAPM TG-186 report workflow. Acquisition and Validation MethodsA computational patient phantom model was generated from a clinical multi-catheter Ir-192 HDR breast brachytherapy case. Regions of interest (ROIs) were contoured and digitized on the patient CT images and the model was written to a series of DICOM CT images using MATLAB. The model was imported into two commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) currently incorporating an MBDCA. Identical treatment plans were prepared using a generic Ir-192 HDR source and the TG-43-based algorithm of each TPS. This was followed by dose to medium in medium calculations using the MBDCA option of each TPS. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation was performed in the model using three different codes and information parsed from the treatment plan exported in DICOM radiation therapy (RT) format. Results were found to agree within statistical uncertainty and the dataset with the lowest uncertainty was assigned as the reference MC dose distribution. Data Format and Usage NotesThe dataset is available online at ,. Files include the treatment plan for each TPS in DICOM RT format, reference MC dose data in RT Dose format, as well as a guide for database users and all files necessary to repeat the MC simulations. Potential ApplicationsThe dataset facilitates the commissioning of brachytherapy MBDCAs using TPS embedded tools and establishes a methodology for the development of future clinical test cases. It is also useful to non-MBDCA adopters for intercomparing MBDCAs and exploring their benefits and limitations, as well as to brachytherapy researchers in need of a dosimetric and/or a DICOM RT information parsing benchmark. Limitations include specificity in terms of radionuclide, source model, clinical scenario, and MBDCA version used for its preparation.
|
|
Assam, I., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., Perez-Calatayud, J., Poppe, B., & Siebert, F. A. (2022). Evaluation of dosimetric effects of metallic artifact reduction and tissue assignment on Monte Carlo dose calculations for I-125 prostate implants. Med. Phys., 49, 6195–6208.
Abstract: Purpose Monte Carlo (MC) simulation studies, aimed at evaluating the magnitude of tissue heterogeneity in I-125 prostate permanent seed implant brachytherapy (BT), customarily use clinical post-implant CT images to generate a virtual representation of a realistic patient model (virtual patient model). Metallic artifact reduction (MAR) techniques and tissue assignment schemes (TAS) are implemented on the post-implant CT images to mollify metallic artifacts due to BT seeds and to assign tissue types to the voxels corresponding to the bright seed spots and streaking artifacts, respectively. The objective of this study is to assess the combined influence of MAR and TAS on MC absorbed dose calculations in post-implant CT-based phantoms. The virtual patient models used for I-125 prostate implant MC absorbed dose calculations in this study are derived from the CT images of an external radiotherapy prostate patient without BT seeds and prostatic calcifications, thus averting the need to implement MAR and TAS. Methods The geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source is validated by comparing the MC calculated results of the TG-43 parameters for the line source approximation with the TG-43U1S2 consensus data. Four MC absorbed dose calculations are performed in two virtual patient models using the egs_brachy MC code: (1) TG-43-based D-w,w-TG(43), (2) D-w,D-w-MBDC that accounts for interseed scattering and attenuation (ISA), (3) D-m,D-m that examines ISA and tissue heterogeneity by scoring absorbed dose in tissue, and (4) D-w,D-m that unlike D-m,D-m scores absorbed dose in water. The MC absorbed doses (1) and (2) are simulated in a TG-43 patient phantom derived by assigning the densities of every voxel to 1.00 g cm(-3) (water), whereas MC absorbed doses (3) and (4) are scored in the TG-186 patient phantom generated by mapping the mass density of each voxel to tissue according to a CT calibration curve. The MC absorbed doses calculated in this study are compared with VariSeed v8.0 calculated absorbed doses. To evaluate the dosimetric effect of MAR and TAS, the MC absorbed doses of this work (independent of MAR and TAS) are compared to the MC absorbed doses of different I-125 source models from previous studies that were calculated with different MC codes using post-implant CT-based phantoms generated by implementing MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images. Results The very good agreement of TG-43 parameters of this study and the published consensus data within 3% validates the geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source. For the clinical studies, the TG-43-based calculations show a D-90 overestimation of more than 4% compared to the more realistic MC methods due to ISA and tissue composition. The results of this work generally show few discrepancies with the post-implant CT-based dosimetry studies with respect to the D-90 absorbed dose metric parameter. These discrepancies are mainly Type B uncertainties due to the different I-125 source models and MC codes. Conclusions The implementation of MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images have no dosimetric effect on the I-125 prostate MC absorbed dose calculation in post-implant CT-based phantoms.
|
|
Valdes-Cortez, C., Niatsetski, Y., Perez-Calatayud, J., Ballester, F., & Vijande, J. (2022). A Monte Carlo study of the relative biological effectiveness in surface brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 49, 5576–5588.
Abstract: Purpose This work aims to simulate clustered DNA damage from ionizing radiation and estimate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for radionuclide (rBT)- and electronic (eBT)-based surface brachytherapy through a hybrid Monte Carlo (MC) approach, using realistic models of the sources and applicators. Methods Damage from ionizing radiation has been studied using the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation algorithm using as input the primary electron fluence simulated using a state-of-the-art MC code, PENELOPE-2018. Two Ir-192 rBT applicators, Valencia and Leipzig, one Co-60 source with a Freiburg Flap applicator (reference source), and two eBT systems, Esteya and INTRABEAM, have been included in this study implementing full realizations of their geometries as disclosed by the manufacturer. The role played by filtration and tube kilovoltage has also been addressed. Results For rBT, an RBE value of about 1.01 has been found for the applicators and phantoms considered. In the case of eBT, RBE values for the Esteya system show an almost constant RBE value of about 1.06 for all depths and materials. For INTRABEAM, variations in the range of 1.12-1.06 are reported depending on phantom composition and depth. Modifications in the Esteya system, filtration, and tube kilovoltage give rise to variations in the same range. Conclusions Current clinical practice does not incorporate biological effects in surface brachytherapy. Therefore, the same absorbed dose is administered to the patients independently on the particularities of the rBT or eBT system considered. The almost constant RBE values reported for rBT support that assumption regardless of the details of the patient geometry, the presence of a flattening filter in the applicator design, or even significant modifications in the photon energy spectra above 300 keV. That is not the case for eBT, where a clear dependence on the eBT system and the characteristics of the patient geometry are reported. A complete study specific for each eBT system, including detailed applicator characteristics (size, shape, filtering, among others) and common anatomical locations, should be performed before adopting an existing RBE value.
|
|
Schaffter, T. et al, Albiol, F., & Caballero, L. (2020). Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms. JAMA Netw. Open, 3(3), e200265–15pp.
Abstract: Importance Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. Objective To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Design, Setting, and Participants In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measurements Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated. Results Overall, 144231 screening mammograms from 85580 US women (952 cancer positive <= 12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166578 examinations from 68008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation. Question How do deep learning algorithms perform compared with radiologists in screening mammography interpretation? Findings In this diagnostic accuracy study using 144231 screening mammograms from 85580 women from the United States and 166578 screening mammograms from 68008 women from Sweden, no single artificial intelligence algorithm outperformed US community radiologist benchmarks; including clinical data and prior mammograms did not improve artificial intelligence performance. However, combining best-performing artificial intelligence algorithms with single-radiologist assessment demonstrated increased specificity. Meaning Integrating artificial intelligence to mammography interpretation in single-radiologist settings could yield significant performance improvements, with the potential to reduce health care system expenditures and address resource scarcity experienced in population-based screening programs. This diagnostic accuracy study evaluates whether artificial intelligence can overcome human mammography interpretation limits with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms.
|
|
Gersabeck, E., & Pich, A. (2020). Tau and charm decays. C. R. Phys., 21(1), 75–92.
Abstract: A summary of recent precise results in tau and charm physics is presented. Topics include leptonic and hadronic tau decays, lepton flavour and lepton number violation, charm mixing and CP violation, leptonic and semileptonic charm decays, rare decays and spectroscopy.
Keywords: Tau and charm physics; D-0 mixing; CP violation
|