↓ Skip to main content

Design and evaluation of electron beam energy degraders for breast boost irradiation

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Design and evaluation of electron beam energy degraders for breast boost irradiation
Published in
Radiation Oncology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0686-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jong In Park, Sung Whan Ha, Jung-in Kim, Hyunseok Lee, Jaegi Lee, Il Han Kim, Sung-Joon Ye

Abstract

For breast cancer patients who require electron boost energies between 6 and 9 MeV, an energy degraders (ED) in the 9 MeV beamline was specially designed and manufactured to increase the skin dose of 6 MeV and to reduce the penetration depth of 9 MeV beams. We used Monte Carlo (MC) techniques as a guide in the design of ED for use with linear accelerators. In order to satisfy percent depth dose (PDD) characteristics and dose profile uniformity in water, the shape and thickness of Lucite® ED in the 9 MeV beamline was iteratively optimized and then manufactured. The ED geometry consists of a truncated cone attached on top of a plane plate, with total central thickness of 1.0 cm. The ED was placed on the lower most scraper of the electron applicator. The PDDs, profiles, and output factors were measured in water to validate the MC-based design. Skin doses with the EDs increased by 8-9 %, compared to those of the 9 MeV beam. The outputs with the EDs were 0.882 and 0.972 for 10 × 10 and 15 × 15 cm(2) cones, respectively, as compared to that of a conventional 9 MeV beam for a 10 × 10 cm(2) cone. The X-ray contamination remained less than 1.5 %. In-vivo measurements were also performed for three breast boost patients and showed close agreement with expected values. The optimally designed ED in the 9 MeV beamline provides breast conserving patients with a new energy option of 7 MeV for boost of the shallow tumor bed. It would be an alternative to bolus and thus eliminate inconvenience and concern about the daily variation of bolus setup.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 7 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,468,369
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,416
of 2,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,295
of 337,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#23
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,060 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.