Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:36:00.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlation between mean lethal dose and organ weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Syed F. Akber  and
Than S. Kehwar
Syed F. Akber
Affiliation:
1Department of Radiation Therapy, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Than S. Kehwar*
Affiliation:
2Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
*
Correspondence to: Than S. Kehwar, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, UPMC St. Margaret Hospital, 815 Freeport Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15215, USA. E-mail: drkehwar@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The assessment of mean lethal dose (Do) with organ weight in human organs yields a correlation coefficient of 0.94. Results indicate that as the organ weight increases, the Do decreases.

Keywords

Mean lethal doseOrgan weightradiation tolerance

Information

Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 163 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cohen, L. Biophysical Models in Radiation Oncology. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC-Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. The best final values of mean lethal radiation doses for skin, spine, lung and gut. Personal communication, 1997.Google Scholar
ICRP report no. 23. 1975. Report of the Task Group on Reference man. Pergamon Press, pp. 280–285.Google Scholar
Akber, SF. Correlation of radiation tolerance dose of normal human organs with organ weight, blood and water content. Am J Clin Oncol 2000; 23: 360–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed