9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dosimetric comparison of surface mould HDR brachytherapy with VMAT

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric differences between surface mould high‐dose‐rate ( HDR) brachytherapy and external beam volumetric‐modulated arc therapy ( VMAT) for two treatment sites.

          Methods

          Previously treated HDR brachytherapy surface mould scalp ( n = 4) and lower leg ( n = 3) treatments were retrospectively analysed. The VMAT plans were optimised using an additional 3‐mm setup margin on the clinical target volume ( CTV) of the previously treated HDR plans. The HDR plans were calculated and normalised using the TG‐43 formalism and recalculated with Acuros BV ( AC).

          Results

          On average, the mean brain and normal tissue doses were reduced by 44.8% and 27.4% for scalp and lower leg VMAT cases, respectively, when compared to AC calculated HDR plans. For VMAT plans, the average dose to a 1‐mm thick skin structure deep to the target volume was not any lower than that in AC HDR plans. On average, the CTV coverage was 13.8% and 9.6% lower for scalp cases with AC dose calculation than with TG‐43 and 8.3% and 5.3% lower for lower leg cases if 0‐ or 1‐cm backscatter material was applied above the catheters, respectively.

          Conclusions

          VMAT is a feasible treatment option in the case of extensive skin malignancies of the scalp and lower leg. Uncertainties related to delivered dose with HDR brachytherapy when using the TG‐43 dose calculation model or possible air gaps between the mould and skin favour the use of VMAT. The potential soft tissue deformation needs to be considered if VMAT is used.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note.

          I Paddick (2000)
          A conformity index is a measure of how well the volume of a radiosurgical dose distribution conforms to the size and shape of a target volume. Because the success of radiosurgery is related to the extremely conformal irradiation of the target, an accurate method for describing this parameter is important. Existing conformity ratios and indices used in radiosurgery are reviewed and criticized. It will be demonstrated that previously proposed measurements of conformity can, under certain conditions, give false perfect scores. A new conformity index is derived that gives an objective score of conformity for a treatment plan and gives no false scores. An analysis of five different treatment plans is made using both the existing scoring methods and the new conformity index.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: current status and recommendations for clinical implementation.

            The charge of Task Group 186 (TG-186) is to provide guidance for early adopters of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) for brachytherapy (BT) dose calculations to ensure practice uniformity. Contrary to external beam radiotherapy, heterogeneity correction algorithms have only recently been made available to the BT community. Yet, BT dose calculation accuracy is highly dependent on scatter conditions and photoelectric effect cross-sections relative to water. In specific situations, differences between the current water-based BT dose calculation formalism (TG-43) and MBDCAs can lead to differences in calculated doses exceeding a factor of 10. MBDCAs raise three major issues that are not addressed by current guidance documents: (1) MBDCA calculated doses are sensitive to the dose specification medium, resulting in energy-dependent differences between dose calculated to water in a homogeneous water geometry (TG-43), dose calculated to the local medium in the heterogeneous medium, and the intermediate scenario of dose calculated to a small volume of water in the heterogeneous medium. (2) MBDCA doses are sensitive to voxel-by-voxel interaction cross sections. Neither conventional single-energy CT nor ICRU∕ICRP tissue composition compilations provide useful guidance for the task of assigning interaction cross sections to each voxel. (3) Since each patient-source-applicator combination is unique, having reference data for each possible combination to benchmark MBDCAs is an impractical strategy. Hence, a new commissioning process is required. TG-186 addresses in detail the above issues through the literature review and provides explicit recommendations based on the current state of knowledge. TG-43-based dose prescription and dose calculation remain in effect, with MBDCA dose reporting performed in parallel when available. In using MBDCAs, it is recommended that the radiation transport should be performed in the heterogeneous medium and, at minimum, the dose to the local medium be reported along with the TG-43 calculated doses. Assignments of voxel-by-voxel cross sections represent a particular challenge. Electron density information is readily extracted from CT imaging, but cannot be used to distinguish between different materials having the same density. Therefore, a recommendation is made to use a number of standardized materials to maintain uniformity across institutions. Sensitivity analysis shows that this recommendation offers increased accuracy over TG-43. MBDCA commissioning will share commonalities with current TG-43-based systems, but in addition there will be algorithm-specific tasks. Two levels of commissioning are recommended: reproducing TG-43 dose parameters and testing the advanced capabilities of MBDCAs. For validation of heterogeneity and scatter conditions, MBDCAs should mimic the 3D dose distributions from reference virtual geometries. Potential changes in BT dose prescriptions and MBDCA limitations are discussed. When data required for full MBDCA implementation are insufficient, interim recommendations are made and potential areas of research are identified. Application of TG-186 guidance should retain practice uniformity in transitioning from the TG-43 to the MBDCA approach.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Aspects of dosimetry and clinical practice of skin brachytherapy: The American Brachytherapy Society working group report.

              Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are the most common type of human malignancy. Although surgical techniques are the standard treatment, radiation therapy using photons, electrons, and brachytherapy (BT) (radionuclide-based and electronic) has been an important mode of treatment in specific clinical situations. The purpose of this work is to provide a clinical and dosimetric summary of the use of BT for the treatment of NMSC and to describe the different BT approaches used in treating cutaneous malignancies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                eeva.boman@pshp.fi
                Journal
                J Med Radiat Sci
                J Med Radiat Sci
                10.1002/(ISSN)2051-3909
                JMRS
                Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2051-3895
                2051-3909
                13 August 2018
                December 2018
                : 65
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/jmrs.2018.65.issue-4 )
                : 311-318
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Blood & Cancer Centre Wellington Hospital Wellington New Zealand
                [ 2 ] Department of Oncology Tampere University Hospital Tampere Finland
                [ 3 ] Department of Medical Physics Tampere University Hospital Tampere Finland
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Eeva L. Boman, Department of Oncology, Tampere University Hospital, PO BOX 2000, FI‐33521 Tampere, Finland. Tel: +358 3 311 63201; Fax: +358 3 311 63001; E‐mail: eeva.boman@ 123456pshp.fi

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6492-2475
                Article
                JMRS301
                10.1002/jmrs.301
                6275250
                30105776
                123826f8-b67d-4018-9705-c96a822d5396
                © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 February 2018
                : 11 July 2018
                : 18 July 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 8, Words: 5712
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jmrs301
                December 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.5.3 mode:remove_FC converted:03.12.2018

                brachytherapy,freiburg flap,intensity‐modulated radiation therapy,scalp,skin,volumetric‐modulated arc therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article