Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorALMasri, Hussein
dc.contributor.authorKakinohana, Yasumasa
dc.contributor.authorToita, Takafumi
dc.contributor.authorAriga, Takuro
dc.contributor.authorKasuya, Goro
dc.contributor.authorMurayama, Sadayuki
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-18T11:33:22Z
dc.date.available2019-12-18T11:33:22Z
dc.date.issued2019-12-03
dc.identifier.issn2523-8973
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.alquds.edu/handle/20.500.12213/5033
dc.description.abstractThe accuracy of intracavitary applicator reconstruction for cervical cancer was assessed. A homemade phantom that mimics clinical applicator placement and reference points was used. Three stainless steel (15°, 30°, and 45°) tandems, x-ray markers, and three reference points were used to compare radiography- and CT-based systems. For CT reconstructions, two Fletcher CT compatible (15° and 30°) tandems, two ovoids, and two reference points, with and without inserted x-ray markers, were used. A 2.5-mm CT slice thickness was used. To check for inter- and intra-operator variations in CT, only a 30° tandem without x-ray markers and 1.25-mm CT slice thickness were used. Applicators were reconstructed three times for each image set to verify the operator reproducibility. A 6 Gy dose was prescribed and normalized at AL-point. Source dwell times were compared to check for dose variation at A-point. Maximum standard deviations SD (σ) for radiography and CT reconstructions were 0.35 and 0.83mm, respectively. Analysis of variance for the means of 15° and 30° tandems showed no significant difference. Levene’s test proved insignificant difference for 15° tandem (p value = 0.131), whereas it showed a significant difference for 30° tandem (p value = 0.011). This phantom study showed that the variance of dwell times between the two methods for 30° tandem was statistically significant due to increased applicator curvature. CT proves superiority to radiography. X-ray marker method was more accurate but has less image quality. Inter- and intra-oncologist variations showed good agreement.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.subjectBrachytherapyen_US
dc.subjectIntracavitaryen_US
dc.subjectRadiographyen_US
dc.subjectComputed tomographyen_US
dc.subjectCatheter reconstructionen_US
dc.titleAccuracy of Intracavitary Applicator Reconstruction for Cervix Cancer Brachytherapyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record