eISSN: 2081-2841
ISSN: 1689-832X
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
Current Issue Archive Supplements Articles in Press Journal Information Aims and Scope Editorial Office Editorial Board Register as Author Register as Reviewer Instructions for Authors Abstracting and indexing Subscription Advertising Information Links
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Interview with Professor Janusz Skowronek
ABS 2015
1/2018
vol. 10
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

A comparative assessment of inhomogeneity and finite patient dimension effects in 60Co and 192Ir high-dose-rate brachytherapy

Irina Fotina, Kyveli Zourari, Vasileios Lahanas, Evaggelos Pantelis, Panagiotis Papagiannis

J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10, 1: 73–84
Online publish date: 2018/02/28
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Purpose
To perform a comparative study of heterogeneities and finite patient dimension effects in 60Co and 192Ir high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.

Material and methods
Clinically equivalent plans were prepared for 19 cases (8 breast, 5 esophagus, 6 gynecologic) using the Ir2.A85-2 and the Co0.A86 HDR sources, with a TG-43 based treatment planning system (TPS). Phase space files were obtained for the two source designs using MCNP6, and validated through comparison to a single source dosimetry results in the literature. Dose to water, taking into account the patient specific anatomy and materials (Dw,m), was calculated for all plans using MCNP6, with input files prepared using the BrachyGuide software tool to analyze information from DICOM RT plan exports.

Results
A general TG-43 dose overestimation was observed, except for the lungs, with a greater magnitude for 192Ir. The distribution of percentage differences between TG-43 and Monte Carlo (MC) in dose volume histogram (DVH) indices for the planning target volume (PTV) presented small median values (about 2%) for both 60Co and 192Ir, with a greater dispersion for 192Ir. Regarding the organs at risk (OARs), median percentage differences for breast V50% were 3% (5%) for 60Co (192Ir). Differences in median skin D2cc were found comparable, with a larger dispersion for 192Ir, and the same applied to the lung D10cc and the aorta D2cc. TG-43 overestimates D2cc for the rectum and the sigmoid, with median differences from MC within 2% and a greater dispersion for 192Ir. For the bladder, the median of the difference is greater for 60Co (~2%) than for 192Ir (~0.75%), demonstrating however a greater dispersion again for 192Ir.

Conclusions
The magnitude of differences observed between TG-43 based and MC dosimetry and their smaller dispersion relative to 192Ir, suggest that 60Co HDR sources are more amenable to the TG-43 assumptions in clinical treatment planning dosimetry.

keywords:

60Co , 192Ir, HDR, TG-43, treatment planning

references:
Ntekim A, Adenipekun A, Akinlade B et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy in the Treatment of cervical cancer: preliminary experience with cobalt 60 Radionuclide source-A Prospective Study. Clin Med Insights Oncol 2010; 4: 89-94.
Mosalaei A, Mohammadianpanah M, Omidvari S et al. High-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of uterine cervix: twenty-year experience with cobalt after-loading system. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16: 1101-1105.
Strohmaier S, Zwierzchowski G. Comparison of 60Co and 192Ir sources in HDR brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2011; 3: 199-208.
Richter J, Baier K, Flentje M. Comparison of 60Co balt and 192Iridium sources in high dose rate afterloading brachytherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2008; 184: 187-192.
Park D, Kim YS, Park SH et al. A comparison of dose distributions of HDR intracavitary brachytherapy using different sources and treatment planning systems. Appl Radiat Isot 2009; 67: 1426-1431.
Palmer A, Hayman O, Muscat S. Treatment planning study of the 3D dosimetric differences between Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervix cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2012; 1: 52-59.
Safigholi H, Han DY, Mashouf S et al. Direction Modulated Brachytherapy (DMBT) for Treatment of Cervical Cancer: A Planning Study with 192Ir, 60Co , and 169Yb HDR Sources. Med Phys 2017; 44: 6538-6547.
Candela-Juan C, Perez-Calatayud J, Rivard MJ. Calculated organ doses using Monte Carlo simulations in a reference male phantom undergoing HDR brachytherapy applied to localized prostate. Med Phys 2013; 40: 033901.
Safigholi H, Meigooni AS, Song WY. Comparison of 192 Ir, 169 Yb, and 60 Co high-dose rate brachytherapy sources for skin cancer treatment. Med Phys 2017; 44: 4426-4436.
Baltas D, Lymperopoulou G, Zamboglou N. On the use of HDR 60Co source with the MammoSite radiation therapy system. Med Phys 2008; 35: 5263-5268.
Zehtabian M, Sina S, Rivard MJ et al. Evaluation of BEBIG HDR 60Co system for non-invasive image-guided breast brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2015; 7: 469-478.
Sinnatamby M, Nagarajan V, Kanipakam Sathyanarayana R et al. Study of the dosimetric differences between 192Ir and 60Co sources of high dose rate brachytherapy for breast interstitial implant. Reports Pract Oncol Radiother 2016; 21: 453-459.
Papagiannis P, Pantelis E, Karaiskos P. Current state of the art brachytherapy treatment planning dosimetry algorithms. Br J Radiol 2014; 87: 20140163.
Sloboda RS, Morrison H, Cawston-Grant B et al. A brief look at model-based dose calculation principles, practicalities, and promise. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2017; 9: 79-88.
Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G et al. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys 1995; 22: 209-234.
Granero D, Pérez-Calatayud J, Ballester F. Technical note: Dosimetric study of a new Co-60 source used in brachytherapy. Med Phys 2007; 34: 3485.
Granero D, Pérez-Calatayud J, Ballester F. Monte Carlo study of the dose rate distributions for the Ir2.A85-2 and Ir2.A85-1 Ir-192 afterloading sources. Med Phys 2008; 35: 1280-1287.
Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG. HDR Applicators & Accessories.
Chassagne D, Dutreix A, Almond P et al. Report 38. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas 1985; os20:NP-NP.
Berger D, Kauer-Dorner D, Seitz W et al. Concepts for critical organ dosimetry in three-dimensional image-based breast brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2008; 7: 320-326.
Pelowitz DB, Goorley JT, James MR et al. MCNP6 user’s manual, 2013.
Cullen DE, Hubbell JH, Kissel L. EPDL97: The evaluated photon data library ’97’, UCRL-LR-50400 Vol 6 Rev 5. Springfield, VA: 1997.
Pantelis E, Peppa V, Lahanas V et al. BrachyGuide: A bra­chytherapy-dedicated DICOM RT viewer and interface to Monte Carlo simulation software. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16: 208-218.
National Nuclear Data Center, information extracted from the NuDat 2 database; http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/
Goorley T, James M, Booth T et al. Initial MCNP6 Release Overview. Nucl Technol 2012; 180: 298-315.
Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM. Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients (version 1.4). Natl Inst Stand Technol Gaithersburg, 1995.
Papagiannis P, Angelopoulos A, Pantelis E et al. Monte Carlo dosimetry of [sup 60]Co HDR brachytherapy sources. Med Phys 2003; 30: 712-721.
Ballester F, Granero D, Pérez-Calatayud J et al. Evaluation of high-energy brachytherapy source electronic disequilibrium and dose from emitted electrons. Med Phys 2009; 36: 4250-4256.
Schneider W, Bortfeld T, Schlegel W et al. Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 459-478.
Peppa V, Pappas E, Major T et al. On the impact of improved dosimetric accuracy on head and neck high dose rate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2016; 120: 92-97.
Peppa V, Pantelis E, Pappas E et al. A user-oriented procedure for the commissioning and quality assurance testing of treatment planning system dosimetry in high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2016; 15: 252-262.
Peppa V, Pappas EP, Karaiskos P et al. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of TG-43 and Monte Carlo calculations in 192Ir breast brachytherapy applications. Phys Med 2016; 32: 1245-1251.
Peppa V, Zourari K, Pantelis E et al. Tissue segmentation significance for individualized 192Ir brachytherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 2013; 106: S371.
Ballester F, Carlsson Tedgren Å, Granero D et al. A generic high-dose rate 192Ir brachytherapy source for evaluation of model-based dose calculations beyond the TG-43 formalism. Med Phys 2015; 42: 3048-3062.
Perez-Calatayud J, Ballester F, Das RK et al. Dose calculation for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV: Report of the AAPM and ESTRO. Med Phys 2012; 39: 2904-2929.
Fonseca GP, Tedgren ÅC, Reniers B et al. Dose specification for 192 Ir high dose rate brachytherapy in terms of dose-to-water-in-medium and dose-to-medium-in-medium. Phys Med Biol 2015; 60: 4565-4579.
Pantelis E, Papagiannis P, Karaiskos P et al. The effect of finite patient dimensions and tissue inhomogeneities on dosimetry planning of 192Ir HDR breast brachytherapy: a Monte Carlo dose verification study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61: 1596-1602.
Zourari K, Major T, Herein A et al. A retrospective dosimetric comparison of TG43 and a commercially available MBDCA for an APBI brachytherapy patient cohort. Phys Medica 2015; 31: 669-676.
Zourari K, Pantelis E, Moutsatsos A et al. Dosimetric accuracy of a deterministic radiation transport based (192)Ir brachytherapy treatment planning system. Part III. Comparison to Monte Carlo simulation in voxelized anatomical computational models. Med Phys 2013; 40: 11712.
Sakelliou L, Sakellariou K, Sarigiannis K et al. Dose rate distributions around Co-60, Cs-137, Au-198, Ir-192, Am-241, I-125 (models 6702 and 6711) brachytherapy sources and nuclide Tc-99m. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37: 1859-1872.
 
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe