Table 1.
SN | Author (year of publication) |
Source used | Number of applications (n) | Type of Imaging |
Type of detector |
DD (%) Minimum to Maximum (Mean ± SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | *Eich et al., (2000) |
Ir-192 | 11 | 2D based | Diodes | -50.0% to 40.0% |
HDR ICBT | (4.0% ± 19.0%) | |||||
2 | *Waldhäusl et al., (2005) |
Ir-192 | 50 | 2D based | Diodes | -31.0% to 90.0% |
HDR ICBT | (Mean 11.0%) | |||||
3 | *Sha et al., (2011) |
Ir-192 | 86 | 2D based | Ionization | <5% (n=52) |
HDR ICBT | chamber | 5% - 10% (n=26) | ||||
10% - 14% (n = 8) | ||||||
(Mean 3.8%) | ||||||
4 | *Allahverdi et al., (2013) |
Cs-137 | 36 | 2D based | Diodes | -85.0% to 36.0% |
MDR ICBT | -3.00% | |||||
5 | *Z.K.Zaman et al., (2014) |
Co-60 | 11 | CT based | Diodes | - 8.5% to 41.2% |
HDR ICBT | (Mean 2.6%) | |||||
6 | **Carrara et al., (2016, 2017) | Ir-192 | 77 | CT based | MOSkin | -16.0% to 19.0% |
HDR Prostate | ( -- not quoted -- ) | |||||
7 | *Jamalludin et al., (2020) |
Co-60 | 18 | CT based | MOSkin | -16.3% to 14.9% |
HDR ICBT | (-3.2% ± 10.1%) | |||||
8 | 18 | Diode | -35.7% to -2.1% | |||
(RP3) | (-15.5% ± 9.7%) | |||||
9 | 48 | Diode | -37.1% to 11.0% | |||
(RPmax) | (Mean -13.5%) | |||||
10 | * Johan et al., | Co-60 | € Phantom | CT | Diodes | -15.6% to 11.8% |
[Present study] | (-2.0% ± 9.5%) | |||||
11 | 22 | CT based | -19.5% to 24.0% | |||
HDR ICBT | (0.7% ± 9.1%) |
*, Gynecological brachytherapy applications.; **, Prostate brachytherapy applications.; n, number of applications; ICBT, Intracavitary cervix brachytherapy; 2D, Two dimensional (through orthogonal radiographs); HDR, High Dose Rate.; MDR, Medium Dose Rate.; CT, Computed Tomography.; RP3, Dose received to the third diode of rectum probe.; RPmax, Maximum dose received to the rectal point.; DD, Difference of measured and planned doses; SD, Standard Deviation; €, Measurements done in water phantom