skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Now Is the Time to Consider Personalized Effective Dose


No abstract prepared.

 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4]
  1. Soma General Hospital, Fukushima (Japan)
  2. (Japan)
  3. Tokai Quantum Beam Science Center, Quantum Beam Science Research Directorate, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Ibaraki (Japan)
  4. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku University, Sendai (Japan)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 96; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States

Citation Formats

Fukunaga, Hisanori, E-mail:, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku University, Sendai, Yokoya, Akinari, and Taki, Yasuyuki. Now Is the Time to Consider Personalized Effective Dose. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.06.012.
Fukunaga, Hisanori, E-mail:, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku University, Sendai, Yokoya, Akinari, & Taki, Yasuyuki. Now Is the Time to Consider Personalized Effective Dose. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.06.012.
Fukunaga, Hisanori, E-mail:, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku University, Sendai, Yokoya, Akinari, and Taki, Yasuyuki. 2016. "Now Is the Time to Consider Personalized Effective Dose". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.06.012.
title = {Now Is the Time to Consider Personalized Effective Dose},
author = {Fukunaga, Hisanori, E-mail: and Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku University, Sendai and Yokoya, Akinari and Taki, Yasuyuki},
abstractNote = {No abstract prepared.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.06.012},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 96,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month =
  • Purpose: To maximize normal tissue sparing for treatments requiring motion encompassing margins. Motion mitigation techniques including DMLC or couch tracking can freeze tumor motion within the treatment aperture potentially allowing for smaller treatment margins and thus better sparing of normal tissue. To enable for a safe application of this concept in the clinic we propose adapting margins dynamically in real-time during radiotherapy delivery based on personalized tumor localization confidence. To demonstrate technical feasibility we present a phantom study. Methods: We utilize a realistic anthropomorphic dynamic thorax phantom with a lung tumor model embedded close to the spine. The tumor, amore » 3D-printout of a patient's GTV, is moved 15mm peak-to-peak by diaphragm compression and monitored by continuous EPID imaging in real-time. Two treatment apertures are created for each beam, one representing ITV -based and the other GTV-based margin expansion. A soft tissue localization (STiL) algorithm utilizing the continuous EPID images is employed to freeze tumor motion within the treatment aperture by means of DMLC tracking. Depending on a tracking confidence measure (TCM), the treatment aperture is adjusted between the ITV and the GTV leaf. Results: We successfully demonstrate real-time personalized margin adjustment in a phantom study. We measured a system latency of about 250 ms which we compensated by utilizing a respiratory motion prediction algorithm (ridge regression). With prediction in place we observe tracking accuracies better than 1mm. For TCM=0 (as during startup) an ITV-based treatment aperture is chosen, for TCM=1 a GTV-based aperture and for 0« less
  • No abstract prepared.
  • In June 2006, the Radiation Studies Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held a workshop to explore rapid methods of facilitating radiological triage of large numbers of potentially contaminated individuals following detonation of a radiological dispersal device. Two options were discussed. The first was the use of traditional gamma cameras in nuclear medicine departments operated as makeshift wholebody counters. Guidance on this approach is currently available from the CDC. This approach would be feasible if a manageable number of individuals were involved, transportation to the relevant hospitals was quickly provided, and the medical staff at each facilitymore » had been previously trained in this non-traditional use of their radiopharmaceutical imaging devices. If, however, substantially larger numbers of individuals (100 s to 1,000 s) needed radiological screening, other options must be given to first responders, first receivers, and health physicists providing medical management. In this study, the second option of the workshop was investigated by the use of commercially available portable survey meters (either NaI or GM based) for assessing potential ranges of effective dose (G50, 50Y250, 250Y500, and 9500 mSv). Two hybrid computational phantoms were used to model an adult male and an adult female subject internally contaminated with 241Am, 60Cs, 137Cs, 131I, or 192Ir following an acute inhalation or ingestion intake. As a function of time following the exposure, the net count rates corresponding to committed effective doses of 50, 250, and 500 mSv were estimated via Monte Carlo radiation transport simulation for each of four different detector types, positions, and screening distances. Measured net count rates can be compared to these values, and an assignment of one of four possible effective dose ranges could be made. The method implicitly assumes that all external contamination has been removed prior to screening and that the measurements be conducted in a low background, and possibly mobile, facility positioned at the triage location. Net count rate data are provided in both tabular and graphical format within a series of eight handbooks available at the CDC website (« less
  • Mr. Christopher Crane, President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Exelon Nuclear was interviewed regarding his views on a series of questions related to the future of the nuclear industry in the United States. His view is that in order for new nuclear power plants to be considered, they must be economically competitive when compared to other baseload generation alternatives. With respect to capital cost, the industry has informally conveyed that overnight capital costs need to be below the range of $1,000-$1,200/kWE. Reactor vendors are working to reduce their first of a kind engineering costs to meet this capital cost threshold.more » Financing is then the next significant factor, which is complicated by whether the plant is being constructed in a regulated environment where the power company has the security of a regulated rate of return or as a merchant plant where the company assumes the risks and benefits of the proposed investment. With respect to operating and maintenance costs, the nuclear power industry has been dedicated to reducing costs while maintaining or improving safety. There are sound plans for spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, but there is a need to improve public confidence in transportation aspects. Regarding making new plants more attractive to investors, the risk factor has been a concern. The new Part 52 process is designed to help by requiring safety design issues to be identified and resolved prior to the issuance of the Combined Operating License (COL) process. While the revised process appears to be more acceptable from an investment risk perspective, there remains uncertainty in the fact that it has never been demonstrated. Skepticism, too, still exists with regard to building plants on schedule and within budget. Mr. Crane concludes that certain incentives will be needed for ''first movers'' in nuclear investment. These could include production tax credits, investment tax credits, government loan guarantees, and power purchase agreements. Despite the challenges facing new plant development, his view is that there is not a better time than now to consider new reactors. The first, most strategic way for the government to ensure new nuclear construction is to establish a national energy platform that recognizes the contribution of nuclear power. Actions are needed too in the reactor design and regulatory process. The best-suited technology is the advanced light water reactor designs. In particular, the Westinghouse AP1000 and the General Electric ESBSW look to be the most promising. Nuclear plants can also help comply with the Kyoto protocol. It is estimated that in 2002, the 103 nuclear units in the U.S. prevented 189.5 million metric tons of carbon, 2.28 million short tons of sulfur dioxide, and 1.39 million short tons of nitrogen oxides. Additional plants only serve to increase these amounts, but all energy sources must strive toward efficiencies to ensure diversification. Future staffing issues are also a critical element for new and existing plants. Not only are nuclear engineers essential, many other skill sets are required to operate and maintain facilities. It is important that we encourage young people to study math and science and it is important that they understand the wide variety of career opportunities available within the nuclear power industry. The interview ends with comments regarding Exelon's pursuit of an early site permit (ESP).« less
  • ICRP Publication 60 (1990) proposes a partially revised method to calculate effective dose, a quantity previously defined in ICRP Publication 26 (1977) as effective dose equivalent. The authors applied these two different approaches to calculate the effective dose equivalent and the effective dose, in the case of internal irradiations from the most common nuclear medicine investigations. The results show clear differences between the two examined quantities, even if the differences are not statistically significant. 5 refs., 4 tabs.