Dosimetric comparison of two afterloaders and treatment planning systems in vaginal high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

Deborah C Marshall, Julie R Bloom, Zahra Ghiassi-Nejad, Vishal Gupta, Audrey Saitta, Allison Powers, Ren-Dih Sheu, Yeh-Chi Lo, Vishruta Dumane
Author Information
  1. Deborah C Marshall: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  2. Julie R Bloom: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  3. Zahra Ghiassi-Nejad: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  4. Vishal Gupta: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  5. Audrey Saitta: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  6. Allison Powers: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  7. Ren-Dih Sheu: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  8. Yeh-Chi Lo: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
  9. Vishruta Dumane: Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.

Abstract

Purpose: In treatment planning for high-dose-rate (HDR) single-channel vaginal cylinder brachytherapy, dose distribution along the cylinder is influenced by the anisotropy of the source. Differences in anisotropy are due to differences in source dimensions and characteristics. In this study, we compared HDR vaginal cylinder brachytherapy treatment plans from two afterloader/treatment planning systems.
Material and methods: Seventy-five plans with prescription to the surface were generated for cylinders in Varian BrachyVision and Elekta Oncentra. To understand the impact of source anisotropy on dose distribution to the surface of the cylinder, potential effect caused by differences in cylinder geometry between systems was eliminated by re-planning Varian cylinder using Elekta source model. Mean relative dose was calculated for each point as well as the dome and length of the cylinder. Related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to compare the mean relative dose between systems.
Results: Treatment plans with VariSource iX source and cylinder demonstrated 16.2% lower ( < 0.001) dose at the tip compared to Elekta v.3. Average dose to the points along the dome of cylinder was 128.4% ±17.9% prescription dose with VariSource iX source and cylinder, and 99.9% ±4.3% with Elekta v.3 source and cylinder. For the same cylinder geometry, the effect of source characteristics produced up to 36.8% difference in dose homogeneity. When cylinder types were planned with the same source, there was no significant difference in dose distribution.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the effect of source characteristics produced up to 37% difference in dose homogeneity when comparing two afterloader/treatment planning systems, independent of cylinder geometry. This insight on variation in dose surrounding source system is imperative for dosimetry considerations. Depending on the choice of afterloader, the extent of EQD for tumor control versus normal tissue toxicity can vary.

Keywords

References

  1. Med Phys. 2012 May;39(5):2904-29 [PMID: 22559663]
  2. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jul;66(4):271-89 [PMID: 27253694]
  3. Med Phys. 2011 Feb;38(2):782-801 [PMID: 21452716]
  4. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014 May-Jun;4(3):137-144 [PMID: 24766678]
  5. Med Phys. 2004 Mar;31(3):633-74 [PMID: 15070264]
  6. Med Phys. 2006 Dec;33(12):4578-82 [PMID: 17278809]
  7. Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Oct;75(1):103-7 [PMID: 10502434]
  8. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990 Feb;18(2):305-14 [PMID: 2303363]
  9. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jan 15;46(2):417-25 [PMID: 10661349]
  10. Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jun;87(6):1041-4 [PMID: 8649687]
  11. Cancer. 1990 Sep 15;66(6):1133-8 [PMID: 2400965]
  12. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 15;67(4):1268-77 [PMID: 17336226]
  13. Brachytherapy. 2012 Jan-Feb;11(1):58-67 [PMID: 22265439]
  14. Lancet. 2010 Mar 6;375(9717):816-23 [PMID: 20206777]
  15. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 May 1;38(2):373-80 [PMID: 9226326]
  16. Med Phys. 2000 Nov;27(11):2521-7 [PMID: 11128304]
  17. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985 Mar;11(3):473-8 [PMID: 3972659]
  18. Gynecol Oncol. 1990 Jul;38(1):99-104 [PMID: 2191908]
  19. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Mar 1;91(3):530-9 [PMID: 25680597]
  20. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Aug 1;62(5):1385-9 [PMID: 16029797]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cylindersourcedosebrachytherapysystemsplanningvaginalanisotropyElektatreatmentHDRdistributioncharacteristicsplanstwoeffectgeometrydifferencehigh-dose-ratealongdifferencesstudycomparedafterloader/treatmentprescriptionsurfaceVarianrelativedomeVariSourceiXv39%producedhomogeneitytoxicityPurpose:single-channelinfluencedDifferencesduedimensionsMaterialmethods:Seventy-fivegeneratedcylindersBrachyVisionOncentraunderstandimpactpotentialcausedeliminatedre-planningusingmodelMeancalculatedpointwelllengthRelated-samplesWilcoxonsigned-ranktestsperformedcomparemeanResults:Treatmentdemonstrated162%lower<0001tipAveragepoints1284%±1799±43%368%typesplannedsignificantConclusions:demonstrates37%comparingindependentinsightvariationsurroundingsystemimperativedosimetryconsiderationsDependingchoiceafterloaderextentEQDtumorcontrolversusnormaltissuecanvaryDosimetriccomparisonafterloadersendometrialcancerqualityradiationtherapy

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)