A medical image-based graphical platform—Features, applications and relevance for brachytherapy

Fonseca, Gabriel Paiva; Reniers, Brigitte; Landry, Guillaume; White, Shane; Bellezzo, Murillo; Antunes, Paula Cristina Guimarães; Sales, Camila Pessoa de; Welteman, Eduardo; Yoriyaz, Hélio; Verhaegen, Frank

doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2014.07.004

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…MC simulations were performed with MCNP6 (Monte Carlo n-Particle, version 1.0 [30]), which is integrated in the auxiliary software AMIGOBrachy [28]. A phase space source was used for calculation, validated in a previous study [31].…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For assessing dose transported in medium and scored in water (D w,m ) or scored in the medium itself (D m,m ), MC simulations were performed on a heterogeneous patient model (TG-186) based on the CT geometry. The CT images were segmented using auxiliary software, AMIGOBrachy [28], to create voxel geometries consisting of 5 tissues (lung (ρ = 0.26 g/cm 3 ), mean adipose tissue (ρ = 0.95 g/cm 3 ), mean male soft tissue (ρ = 1.03 g/cm 3 ), mean female soft tissue (ρ = 1.02 g/cm 3 ), liver (ρ = 1.06 g/cm 3 ), and cortical bone (ρ = 1.92 g/cm 3 )), with compositions and densities recommended by TG-186 [1], and air (ρ = 0.0012 g/cm 3 ). The segmentation was performed by assigning homogeneous densities corresponding to the tissues specified above to fixed Hounsfield Unit (HU) ranges (see Table 2).…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Calculations were performed using the 192 Ir photon spectrum available from the National Nuclear Data Center [35]. The calculation method has been described in detail by Fonseca et al [28,31] and was also used by several authors [36][37][38]. The dose was cut off at a maximum value of 200 Gy for better comparison with the TPS, which uses this cutoff as a standard.…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The goal of this study was to assess whether MBDC are required for accurate dosimetry of liver brachytherapy given the organ's proximity to the lung, its higher density than water, and the proximity of organs at risks (OARs) such as the stomach or duodenum (in addition to healthy liver tissue). MBDC were retrospectively compared to TG-43U1 calculations for liver cancer cases treated with 192 Ir HDR brachytherapy, by employing CTbased, gold-standard MC simulations performed with the AMIGOBrachy [28] platform. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices for the clinical target volume (CTV), for the OARs and for the whole liver were compared between TG-186 and TG-43U1 dose distributions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The dosimetric impact of replacing the TG-43 algorithm by model based dose calculation for liver brachytherapy

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare treatment plans for interstitial high dose rate (HDR) liver brachytherapy with 192 Ir calculated according to current-standard TG-43U1 protocol with model-based dose calculation following TG-186 protocol. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters for liver, organs at risk (OARs) and clinical target volumes (CTVs) of 20 patient cases diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Dose calculations on a homogeneous water geometry (TG-43U1 surrogate) and on a computed tomography (CT) based geometry (TG-186) were performed using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The CTs were segmented based on a combination of assigning TG-186 recommended tissues to fixed Hounsfield Unit (HU) ranges and using organ contours delineated by physicians. For the liver, V 5Gy and V 10Gy were analysed, and for OARs the dose to 1 cubic centimeter (D 1cc ). Target coverage was assessed by calculating V 150 , V 100 , V 95 and V 90 as well as D 95 and D 90 . For every DVH parameter, median, minimum and maximum values of the deviations of TG-186 from TG-43U1 were analysed. Results: TG-186-calculated dose was found to be on average lower than dose calculated with TG-43U1. The deviation of highest magnitude for liver parameters was -6.2% of the total liver volume. For OARs, the deviations were all smaller than or equal to -0.5 Gy. Target coverage deviations were as high as -1.5% of the total CTV volume and -3.5% of the prescribed dose. Conclusions: In this study we found that TG-43U1 overestimates dose to liver tissue compared to TG-186. This finding may be of clinical importance for cases where dose to the whole liver is the limiting factor.

show abstract

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The dosimetric impact of replacing the TG-43 algorithm by model based dose calculation for liver brachytherapy

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Commissioning resources available on the Registry are presently limited to an initial set of four generic test plans for HDR 192 Ir brachytherapy; however, these will be augmented with clinical site-specific HDR 192 Ir test plans and eventually extended to include 125 I brachytherapy. The peer-reviewed literature also offers guidance and resources to aid in MBDCA commissioning [30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. …”

Section: Commercial Treatment Planning Systems Incorporating Model-bamentioning

confidence: 99%

A brief look at model-based dose calculation principles, practicalities, and promise

Sloboda¹,

Morrison²,

Cawston-Grant³

et al. 2017

jcb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) have recently emerged as potential successors to the highly practical, but sometimes inaccurate TG-43 formalism for brachytherapy treatment planning. So named for their capacity to more accurately calculate dose deposition in a patient using information from medical images, these approaches to solve the linear Boltzmann radiation transport equation include point kernel superposition, the discrete ordinates method, and Monte Carlo simulation. In this overview, we describe three MBDCAs that are commercially available at the present time, and identify guidance from professional societies and the broader peer-reviewed literature intended to facilitate their safe and appropriate use. We also highlight several important considerations to keep in mind when introducing an MBDCA into clinical practice, and look briefly at early applications reported in the literature and selected from our own ongoing work. The enhanced dose calculation accuracy offered by a MBDCA comes at the additional cost of modelling the geometry and material composition of the patient in treatment position (as determined from imaging), and the treatment applicator (as characterized by the vendor). The adequacy of these inputs and of the radiation source model, which needs to be assessed for each treatment site, treatment technique, and radiation source type, determines the accuracy of the resultant dose calculations. Although new challenges associated with their familiarization, commissioning, clinical implementation, and quality assurance exist, MBDCAs clearly afford an opportunity to improve brachytherapy practice, particularly for low-energy sources.

show abstract

AAPM WGDCAB Report 372: A joint AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS report on commissioning of model‐based dose calculation algorithms in brachytherapy

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of model‐based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG‐186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model‐Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field‐tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well‐characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor‐specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine—Radiotherapy (DICOM‐RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG‐186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well‐known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step‐by‐step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for 192Ir‐based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.

show abstract

A medical image-based graphical platform—Features, applications and relevance for brachytherapy

Cited by 19 publications

References 18 publications

The dosimetric impact of replacing the TG-43 algorithm by model based dose calculation for liver brachytherapy

The dosimetric impact of replacing the TG-43 algorithm by model based dose calculation for liver brachytherapy

A brief look at model-based dose calculation principles, practicalities, and promise

AAPM WGDCAB Report 372: A joint AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS report on commissioning of model‐based dose calculation algorithms in brachytherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About