Abstract
4/2013
vol. 5
Original paper
Head and neck 192Ir HDR-brachytherapy dosimetry using a grid-based Boltzmann solver
J Contemp Brachytherapy 2013; 5, 4: 232-235
Online publish date: 2013/12/18
Purpose: To compare dosimetry for head and neck cancer patients, calculated with TG-43 formalism and a commercially available grid-based Boltzmann solver.
Material and methods: This study included 3D-dosimetry of 49 consecutive brachytherapy head and neck cancer patients, computed by a grid-based Boltzmann solver that takes into account tissue inhomogeneities as well as TG-43 formalism. 3D-treatment planning was carried out by using computed tomography.
Results: Dosimetric indices D90 and V100 for target volume were about 3% lower (median value) for the grid-based Boltzmann solver relative to TG-43-based computation (p < 0.01). The V150 dose parameter showed 1.6% increase from grid-based Boltzmann solver to TG-43 (p < 0.01).
Conclusions: Dose differences between results of a grid-based Boltzmann solver and TG-43 formalism for high-dose-rate head and neck brachytherapy patients to the target volume were found. Distinctions in D90 of CTV were low (2.63 Gy for grid-based Boltzmann solver vs. 2.71 Gy TG-43 in mean). In our clinical practice, prescription doses remain unchanged for high-dose-rate head and neck brachytherapy for the time being.
Material and methods: This study included 3D-dosimetry of 49 consecutive brachytherapy head and neck cancer patients, computed by a grid-based Boltzmann solver that takes into account tissue inhomogeneities as well as TG-43 formalism. 3D-treatment planning was carried out by using computed tomography.
Results: Dosimetric indices D90 and V100 for target volume were about 3% lower (median value) for the grid-based Boltzmann solver relative to TG-43-based computation (p < 0.01). The V150 dose parameter showed 1.6% increase from grid-based Boltzmann solver to TG-43 (p < 0.01).
Conclusions: Dose differences between results of a grid-based Boltzmann solver and TG-43 formalism for high-dose-rate head and neck brachytherapy patients to the target volume were found. Distinctions in D90 of CTV were low (2.63 Gy for grid-based Boltzmann solver vs. 2.71 Gy TG-43 in mean). In our clinical practice, prescription doses remain unchanged for high-dose-rate head and neck brachytherapy for the time being.
Keywords
acuros, brachytherapy, head and neck, heterogeneity correction, HDR, GBBS
Indexed in
Integrated with
Editorial Policies
