Eye lens dose in spine surgeons during myelography procedures: a dosimetry study.

To determine the eye lens dose (3 mm dose equivalent [Hp(3)]) received by spine surgeons during myelography and evaluate the effectiveness of radiation-protective glasses and x-ray tube system positioning in reducing radiation exposure. This study included spine surgeons who performed myelography using over- or under-table x-ray tube systems. Hp(3) was measured for each examination using a radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeter (GD-352M) mounted on radiation-protective glass. This study identified significantly high Hp(3) levels, especially in the right eye lens in spinal surgeons. The median Hp(3) values in the right eye were 524 (391-719) and 58 (42-83)µSv/examination for over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. Further, Hp(3)AK, which was obtained by dividing the cumulative air kerma from Hp(3), was 8.09 (6.69-10.21) and 5.11 (4.06-6.31)µSv mGy-1for the over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. Implementing radiation-protective glasses resulted in dose reduction rates of 54% (50%-57%) and 54% (51%-60%) for the over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. The use of radiation protection glasses significantly reduced the radiation dose in the eye lens during myelography, with the most effective measures being the combination of using radiation protection glasses and an under-table x-ray tube system.

Difference in target dose distributions between Acuros XB and collapsed cone convolution/superposition and the impact of the tumor locations in clinical cases of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for lung cancer.

Objectives: The objective of the study is to analyze the difference in target dose distributions between Acuros XB (AXB) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC)/superposition and the impact of the tumor locations in clinical cases of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer. Materials and Methods: Ninety-six patients underwent SABR for lung cancers Kyushu University Hospital from 2014 to 2017. We recalculated clinical plans originally calculated by AXB using CCC with the identical monitor units (MUs) and beam arrangements. We calculated the following dosimetric parameters: maximum dose (Dmax), minimum dose (Dmin), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and D95 of the planning target volume (PTV). We investigated the difference between the results of two calculations and examined the impact of tumor location. Moreover, we determined the target central dose using a thorax phantom and assessed the calculation accuracy of the two algorithms for each fraction. Results: CCC significantly overestimated the dose to PTV, compared to AXB (P < 0.05). The mean differences of Dmax, Dmin, and D95 were 1.17, 1.95, and 1.85 Gy, respectively. The mean differences of HI and CI were 0.02 and - 0.06. Dmin, HI, and D95 had significant correlations with the tumor location, and the difference was greater when the PTV was included the chest wall (P < 0.05). The discrepancy between the calculated and irradiated dose was 2.48% for CCC, whereas it was 0.14% for AXB. Conclusions: We demonstrated that CCC significantly overestimated the dose to PTV relative to AXB in clinical cases of lung SABR.