High Dose Rate Brachytherapy

Nag, Subir; Scruggs, Granger R.; Abitbol, Andre; Pouliot, Jean; Orton, Colin G.

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4160-5897-7.00015-9

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 273 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The surgeon is occasionally involved in these procedures, particularly if laparotomy or craniotomy is necessary for insertion of the applicators or if tumor resection is required prior to applicator insertion. The specialist should always be aware of the indications for brachytherapy and the associated techniques [1–3]. Brachytherapy with modern afterloading equipment offers three major advantages over interstitial or intracavitary insertion of separate needles, tubes, seeds or wires: 1) isodose volumes in tissues can be created flexibly by a combination of careful placement of the catheter and adjustment of the dwell times of computerized stepping source; this process is usually called “dose optimization”, 2) automatic removal of the radiation sources into a shielded safe whenever somebody enters the procedure room eliminates radiation exposures to staff and visitors, 3) radiation exposure is also eliminated to the staff who formerly loaded and unloaded multiplicity of radioactive sources into the catheters, ovoids, tubes, etc.…”

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Pulsed dose rate brachytherapy – is it the right way?

Skowronek¹

2010

jcb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulsed dose rate (PDR-BT) treatment is a brachytherapy modality that combines physical advantages of high-dose-rate (HDR-BT) technology (isodose optimization, radiation safety) with the radiobiological advantages of low-dose-rate (LDR-BT) brachytherapy. Pulsed brachytherapy consists of using stronger radiation source than for LDR-BT and producing series of short exposures of 10 to 30 minutes in every hour to approximately the same total dose in the same overall time as with the LDR-BT. Modern afterloading equipment offers certain advantages over interstitial or intracavitary insertion of separate needles, tubes, seeds or wires. Isodose volumes in tissues can be created flexibly by a combination of careful placement of the catheter and the adjustment of the dwell times of the computerized stepping source. Automatic removal of the radiation sources into a shielded safe eliminates radiation exposures to staff and visitors. Radiation exposure is also eliminated to the staff who formerly loaded and unloaded multiplicity of radioactive sources into the catheters, ovoids, tubes etc. This review based on summarized clinical investigations, analyses the feasibility and the background to introduce this brachytherapy technique and chosen clinical applications of PDR-BT.

show abstract

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Pulsed dose rate brachytherapy – is it the right way?

Skowronek¹

2010

jcb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impact of a 1.5 T magnetic field on DNA damage in MRI-guided HDR brachytherapy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some studies have suggested that the presence of a static magnetic field (SMF) during irradiation alters biological damage. Since MRI-guided radiotherapy is becoming increasingly common, we constructed a DNAbased detector to assess the effect of a 1.5 T SMF on DNA damage during high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy irradiation. Methods: Block phantoms containing a small cavity for the placement of plasmid DNA (pBR322) samples were 3-D printed with biocompatible tissue equivalent material. The phantom was CT scanned and an HDR brachytherapy treatment plan was designed to deliver 20 Gy and 30 Gy doses to the DNA samples in the presence and absence of a 1.5 T SMF. Relative yields of single-and double-strand breaks (SSBs and DSBs, respectively) were computed from gel electrophoresis images of the DNA band intensities and averaged over sample sizes ranging from 12 to 30. Radiation dose was also measured in the presence and absence of the 1.5 T SMF using GafChromic™ EBT3 film placed in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes. Results: The average yield of DNA with SSBs and DSBs in the presence and absence of the SMF showed no statistically significant differences (all p ≥ 0.17). Differences in the net optical densities of the EBT3 films for each plane were within experimental uncertainty, suggesting no dose difference in the presence and absence of the SMF. Conclusions: HDR irradiation in the presence of the 1.5 T SMF did not alter dose deposition to the DNA cavity nor change SSB and DSB DNA damage.

show abstract