The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the endometrium

PurposeAs an alternative to cylindrical applicators, air‐inflated balloon applicators have been introduced into high‐dose‐rate (HDR) vaginal cuff brachytherapy to achieve sufficient dose to the vagina mucosa as well as to spare organs at risk, mainly the rectum and bladder. Commercial treatment planning systems which employ formulae in the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG 43) report do not take into account tissue inhomogeneity. Consequently, the low‐density air in a balloon applicator induces different doses delivered to the mucosa from planned by these planning systems. In this study, we investigated the dosimetric effects of the air in a balloon applicator using the Monte Carlo (MC) method.MethodsThe thirteen‐catheter Capri™ applicator by Varian™ for vaginal cuff brachytherapy was modeled together with the Ir‐192 radioactive source for the microSelectron™ Digital (HDR‐V3) afterloader by Elekta™ using the MCNP MC code. The validity of charged particle equilibrium (CPE) with an air balloon present was evaluated by comparing the kerma and the absorbed dose at various distances from the applicator surface. By comparing MC results with and without air cavity present, dosimetric effects of the air cavity were studied. Clinical patient cases with optimized multiple Ir‐192 source dwell positions were also explored. Four treatment plans by the Oncentra Brachy™ treatment planning system were re‐calculated with MCNP.Results CPE fails in the vicinity of the air‐water interface. One millimeter beyond the air‐water boundary the kerma and the absorbed dose are equal (0.2% difference), regardless of air cavity dimensions or iridium source locations in the balloon. The air cavity results in dose increase, due to less photon absorption in the air than in water or solid materials. The extent of the increase depends on the diameter of the air balloon. The average increment is 3.8%, 4.5% and 5.3% for 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 cm applicators, respectively. In patient cases, the dose to the mucosa is also increased with the air cavity present. The point dose difference between Oncentra Brachy and MC at 5 mm prescription depth is 8% at most and 5% on average.ConclusionsExcept in the vicinity of the air‐mucosa interface, the dosimetric difference is not significant enough to mandate tissue inhomogeneity correction in HDR treatment planning.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric assessment of an air‐filled balloon applicator in HDR vaginal cuff brachytherapy using the Monte Carlo method

Jiang

Badkul

Pokhrel

2018

“…The short applicator setup is usable in postoperative adjuvant therapy for endometrial cancer with a vaginal cylinder applicator, (30) which generally has diameters from 1.5 to 4 cm and a dome‐shaped ending in the vaginal apex. In this setup, the major part of the ODIN region near the vector cable is inside of the cylinder and thus does not affect the target tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brachytherapy treatment planning commissioning: effect of the election of proper bibliography and finite size of TG‐43 input data on standard treatments

Valdés

Piriz

Lozano

2015

The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of a commercial brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS) with TG‐43 Vendors Input Data (VID), analyze possible discrepancies with respect to a proper reference source and its implications for standard treatments, and judge the effectiveness of certain widespread recommended quality controls to find potential errors related with the interpolations of TG‐43 VID tables. The TPS evaluated was a BrachyVision 8.6 loaded with TG‐43 VID for a VariSource high‐dose‐rate 192Ir source (Vs2000). The reference data chosen were the TG‐43 data published in the literature. In the first step, we compared TG‐43 VID with respect to the chosen reference data. Next, we used percent dose‐rate differences in a point array matrix to compare the outcomes of the TPS on standard treatment setup with respect to an in‐house developed program (MATLAB R2009a‐based) loaded with the chosen full TG‐43 reference data. The cases with major discrepancies were evaluated using the gamma‐index analysis. The comparison with the reference data indicated a lack of sample in the angles between near to the tip (between 165<θ<180) and cable (0<θ<15) of the F(r,θ)VID, which causes a dose underestimation of approximately 17% in the investigated points due to inaccurate interpolations. The differences over 2% encompassed approximately 17% of the surrounding source volume. These results have special relevance in treatment using one applicator with a few dwell steps or in Fletcher treatments where 10% dose underestimates were identified within the tumor or in organs at risk, respectively. Our results suggest that the differences found in the TPS under study are created by a lack of information on the angles in high‐gradient zones in the F(r,θ)VID, which generates important differences in dosimetric results. In contrast, the gamma analysis shows very good results (between 90% and 100% of passed points) in the analyzed treatments (one dwell and Fletcher). Further studies are required to exclude the possibility of finding noticeable effects in the DVH of treatment plans caused by the discrepancies here described. To achieve more strict control over the TPS dose‐rate calculation, we recommend using QA test thinking in a source with nonaxial symmetry, adding a control point on the angles of the high‐dose gradient zones (e.g., between 0° and 15° and between 165° and 180°). More studies are required to achieve full understanding of the clinical implication of such discrepancies.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

“…( 3 ) HDR‐BRT was performed one week after 3D CRT, delivering 6 Gy/week. The boost of dose was delivered with 4 or 3 fractions (fr) to the patients receiving the prophylactic dose of 45 Gy and 50.4 Gy, respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…HDR‐BRT is performed to administer a high dose to unresected or residual primary tumor in the vaginal vault. ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local tumor control probability to evaluate an applicator‐guided volumetric‐modulated arc therapy solution as alternative of 3D brachytherapy for the treatment of the vaginal vault in patients affected by gynecological cancer

Pedicini¹,

Strigari

Caivano³

et al. 2013

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicator‐guided volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (AGVMAT) solution as an alternative to high‐dose‐rate brachytherapy (HDR‐BRT) treatment of the vaginal vault in patients with gynecological cancer (GC). AGVMAT plans for 51 women were developed. The volumetric scans used for plans were obtained with an implanted CT‐compatible vaginal cylinder which provides spatial registration and immobilization of the gynecologic organs. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparisons for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were performed by means of a dose‐volume histogram (DVH), equivalent uniform dose (EUD), and local tumor control probability (LTCP). In addition, the integral dose and the overall delivery time, were evaluated. The HDR‐BRT averages of EUD and minimum LTCP were significantly higher than those of AGVMAT. Doses for the OARs were comparable for the bladder and sigmoid, while, although HDR‐BRT was able to better spare the bowel, AGVMAT provided a significant reduction of normald2cc, normald1cc, and dmax (p<0.01) for the rectum. AGVMAT integral doses were higher than HDR‐BRT with low values in both cases. Delivery times were about two or three times higher for HDR‐BRT with respect to the single arc technique (AGVMAT1) and dual arc technique (AGVMAT2), respectively. The applicator‐guided volumetric‐modulated arc therapy seems to have the potential of improving rectum avoidance. However, brachytherapy improves performance in terms of PTV coverage, as demonstrated by a greater EUD and better LTCP curves.PACS number: 87