The increase in the number of manufacturers of 125I sources used in prostate brachytherapy has generated many questions in the radiation oncology community. In this investigation, the physical and dosimetric characteristics were evaluated for the following sources listed by marketing company and source model: Nycomed-Amersham 6711 (OncoSeed), Nycomed-Amersham 6702, Mentor IoGold, UroMed Symmetra, Imagyn IsoSTAR, UroCor, (PSA, Mallincrkrodt) ProstaSeed, Syncor PharmaSeed, SourceTech Medical, (BARD) 125Implant (BrachySource), Med-Tec I-Plant, Best Medical Model 2301, DraxImage BrachySeed, and International Brachytherapy, Inc. (IBT) InterSource125. The investigation examined the differences in design, construction, and the dosimetric characteristics created from each source. The dosimetric characteristics of the new sources were compared to that of the Amersham 6711 source. Parameter studies have led to the development of a simple equation that can be used to clinically convert the standard 6711 source strength to an equivalent strength of a new source.
This study was designed to determine whether volumetric imaging could identify consistent alternative prescription methods to Manchester/point A when prescribing radiation dose in the treatment of cervical cancer using HDR intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). One hundred and twenty‐five treatment plans of 25 patients treated for carcinoma of the cervix were reviewed retrospectively. Each patient received 5 fractions of HDR ICBT following initial cisplatin‐based pelvic chemoradiation, and radiation dose was originally prescribed to point A (ICRU‐38). The gross tumor volume (GTV) and high‐risk clinical target volume (HR‐CTV) were contoured in three dimensions on the CT datasets, and inferior–superior, anterior–posterior, and left–right dimensions HR‐CTV were recorded along with multiple anatomic and skeletal dimensions for each patient. The least square–best fit regression lines were plotted between one half of the HR‐CTV width and pelvic cavity dimension at femoral head level and at maximum cavity dimension. The points in both plots lie reasonably close to straight lines and are well defined by straight lines with slopes of 0.15 and 0.17; intercept on y‐axes of ‐0.08 and ‐0.03, point A, at the same level as defined based on applicator coordinates, is defined using this correlation, which is a function of distance between femoral heads/dimensions of maximum pelvic cavity width. Both relations, defined by straight lines, provide an estimated location of point A, which provides adequate coverage to the HR‐CTV compared to the point A defined based on applicator coordinates. The point A defined based on femoral head distance would, therefore, be a reasonable surrogate to use for dose prescription because of subjective variation of cavity width dimension. Simple surrogate anatomic/skeletal landmarks can be useful for prescribing radiation dose when treating cervical cancer using intracavitary brachytherapy in limited‐resource settings. Our ongoing work will continue to refine these models.PACS number(s): 87.55.D‐, 87.55.ne
Purpose: Evaluation and comparison of 2D electronic systems versus film/ion chamber based dosimetry for IMRT QA using MapCHECK and MatriXX. Method and Materials: All IMRT plans were generated with Eclipse/Helios 7.3.10 treatment planning software (Varian). Treatments were delivered on a Varian 21EX linear accelerator (6MV) with 120 leaf Millenium MLC for delivery of sliding window IMRT. The film measurements were first compared to the Eclipse dose plane. Secondly, the electronic measurements were compared to the Eclipse dose plane. Thirdly, the film measurements were compared to the electronic measurements. The film, Eclipse dose plane and MatriXX (Scanditronix) were analyzed using the OmniPro IMRT software (Scanditronix). The film, Eclipse dose plane and MapCHECK (SunNuclear) were analyzed using the MapCHECK software. Analysis was based on distance to agreement (DTA), Gamma, profile comparisons, measured dose (relative/absolute) and visual comparison. Results: Film and ion chamber comparisons were in good agreement as well as comparisons between electronic and ion chamber measurements. However, in some instances, electronic system measurements did not agree with film due to MLC leaf failure. Advantages and disadvantages of MatriXX and MapCheck for IMRT QA as well as specific MLC leaf failure instances will be discussed further. Conclusion: With many clinics implementing electronic IMRT QA devices, a careful understanding of the limitations of the MLC system and the electronic IMRT QA device is needed. We are investigating the resolution capabilities of each QA system. The MLC failure was caught before treatment began. A major disadvantage in implementing 2D electronic systems for IMRT QA is the limited resolution, resulting in limited sensitivity to MLC failures. Primary advantages of 2D electronic systems include: 1) time, 2) efficiency, 3) ease of use, and 4) overall simplification of IMRT QA.
PurposeThis study evaluated dosimetric parameters for cervical high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatment using varying dose prescription methods.MethodsThis study includes 125 tandem-based cervical HDR brachytherapy treatment plans of 25 patients who received HDR brachytherapy. Delineation of high-risk clinical target volumes (HR-CTVs) and organ at risk were done on original computed tomographic images. The dose prescription point was defined as per International Commission in Radiation Units and Measurements Report Number 38 (ICRU-38), also redefined using American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) 2011 criteria. The coverage index (V100) for each HR-CTV was calculated using dose volume histogram parameters. A plot between HR-CTV and V100was plotted using the best-fit linear regression line (least-square fit analysis).ResultsMean prescribed dose to ICRU-38 Point A was 590·47±28·65 cGy, and to ABS Point A was 593·35±30·42 cGy. There was no statistically significant difference between planned ICRU-38 and calculated ABS Point A doses (p=0·23). The plot between HR-CTV and V100is well defined by the best-fit linear regression line with a correlation coefficient of 0·9519.ConclusionFor cervical HDR brachytherapy, dose prescription to an arbitrarily defined point (e.g., Point A) does not provide consistent coverage of HR-CTV. The difference in coverage between two dose prescription approaches increases with increasing CTV. Our ongoing work evaluates the dosimetric consequences of volumetric dose prescription approaches for these patients.
Purpose: Computerized radiation therapy treatment planning is performed on almost all patients today. However it is seldom used for laboratory irradiations. The first objective is to assess whether modern radiation therapy treatment planning (RTP) systems accurately predict the subject dose by comparing in vivo and decedent dose measurements to calculated doses. The other objective is determine the importance of using a RTP system for laboratory irradiations. Methods: 5 MOSFET radiation dosimeters were placed enterically in each subject (2 sedated Rhesus Macaques) to measure the absorbed dose at 5 levels (carina, lung, heart, liver and rectum) during whole body irradiation. The subjects were treated with large opposed lateral fields and extended distances to cover the entire subject using a Varian 600C linac. CT simulation was performed ante‐mortem (AM) and post‐mortem (PM). To compare AM and PM doses, calculation points were placed at the location of each dosimeter in the treatment plan. The measured results were compared to the results using Varian Eclipse and Prowess Panther RTP systems. Results: The Varian and Prowess treatment planning system agreed to within in +1.5% for both subjects. However there were significant differences between the measured and calculated doses. For both animals the calculated central axis dose was higher than prescribed by 3–5%. This was caused in part by inaccurate measurement of animal thickness at the time of irradiation. For one subject the doses ranged from 4% to 7% high and the other subject the doses ranged 7% to 14% high when compared to the RTP doses. Conclusions: Our results suggest that using proper CT RTP system can more accurately deliver the prescribed dose to laboratory subjects. It also shows that there is significant dose variation in such subjects when inhomogeneities are not considered in the planning process.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.