Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 21, 2026

Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Dosimetric effect of tissue heterogeneity for (125)I prostate implants
Susana Maria Oliveira1, Nuno José Teixeira2, Lisete Fernandes3
1Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campo Mártires da Pátria, 130, 1169-056 Lisbon, Portugal ; Quadrantes Faro - Unidade de Radioterapia do Algarve, Rua da Associação Oncológica do Algarve, 8000-316 Faro, Portugal ; MedicalConsult, SA, Campo Grande, 56-8°A, 1700-093 Lisbon, Portugal.
Aim:
To use Monte Carlo (MC) together with voxel phantoms to analyze the tissue heterogeneity effect in the dose distributions and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for (125)I prostate implants.
Background:
Dose distribution calculations in low dose-rate brachytherapy are based on the dose deposition around a single source in a water phantom. This formalism does not take into account tissue heterogeneities, interseed attenuation, or finite patient dimensions effects. Tissue composition is especially important due to the photoelectric effect.
Materials And Methods:
The computed tomographies (CT) of two patients with prostate cancer were used to create voxel phantoms for the MC simulations. An elemental composition and density were assigned to each structure. Densities of the prostate, vesicles, rectum and bladder were determined through the CT electronic densities of 100 patients. The same simulations were performed considering the same phantom as pure water. Results were compared via dose-volume histograms and EUD for the prostate and rectum.
Results:
The mean absorbed doses presented deviations of 3.3-4.0% for the prostate and of 2.3-4.9% for the rectum, when comparing calculations in water with calculations in the heterogeneous phantom. In the calculations in water, the prostate D 90 was overestimated by 2.8-3.9% and the rectum D 0.1cc resulted in dose differences of 6-8%. The EUD resulted in an overestimation of 3.5-3.7% for the prostate and of 7.7-8.3% for the rectum.
Conclusions:
The deposited dose was consistently overestimated for the simulation in water. In order to increase the accuracy in the determination of dose distributions, especially around the rectum, the introduction of the model-based algorithms is recommended.
More Related Videos
09:49A Whole Body Dosimetry Protocol for Peptide-Receptor Radionuclide Therapy PRRT: 2D Planar Image and Hybrid 2D+3D SPECT/CT Image Methods
Published on: April 24, 2020
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021