Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-gf4tf Total loading time: 0.336 Render date: 2021-08-03T17:24:39.384Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Dosimetric feasibility of an anthropomorphic three-dimensional PRESAGE® dosimeter for verification of single entry hybrid catheter accelerated partial breast brachytherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2018

Khalid Iqbal
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan Department of Radiation Oncology, Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital & Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Geoffrey S. Ibbott
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Ryan G. Lafratta
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Kent A. Gifford
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Muhammad Akram
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Saeed A. Buzdar
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the feasibility of an anthropomorphic breast polyurethane-based three-dimensional (3D) dosimeter with cavity to measure dose distributions and skin dose for a commercial strut-based applicator strut-adjusted volume implant (SAVI™) 6–1.

Materials and methods

An anthropomorphic breast 3D dosimeter was created with a cavity to accommodate the SAVI™ strut-based device. 2 Gy was prescribed to the breast dosimeter having D95 to planning target volume evaluation (PTV_EVAL) while limiting 125% of the prescribed dose to the skin. Independent dose distribution verification was performed with GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film. The dose distribution from the 3D dosimeter was compared to the distributions from commercial brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS) and film. Point skin doses, line profiles and dose–volume histogram (DVHs) for the skin and PTV_EVAL were compared.

Results

The maximum difference in skin dose for TPS and the 3D dosimeter was 4% whereas 41% between the TPS and EBT2 film. The maximum dose difference for line profiles between TPS, 3D dosimeter, and film was 4·1%. DVHs of skin and PTV_EVAL for TPS and 3D dosimeter differed by a maximum of 4% at 5 mm depth and skin differed by a maximum 1·5% between TPS and 3D dosimeter. The criterion for gamma analysis comparison was 92·5% at ±5%±3 mm criterion. The TPS demonstrated at least ±5% comparability in predicting dose to the skin, PTV_EVAL and normal breast tissue.

Conclusions

3D anthropomorphic polyurethane dosimeter with cavity gives comparable results to the TPS dose predictions and GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film results in the context of HDR brachytherapy.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Manoharan, S R, Rodriguez, R R, Bobba, V S, Mukka, C. Dosimetry evaluation of SAVI-based HDR brachytherapy for partial breast irradiation. J Med Phys 2010; 35: 131136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Guo, P Y, Adamovics, J A, Oldham, M. Characterization of a new radiochromic three-dimensional dosimeter. Med Phys 2006; 33 (5): 13381345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Scanderbeg, D J, Yashar, C, Rice, R, Pawlicki, T. Clinical implementation of a new HDR brachytherapy device for partial breast irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2009; 90: 3642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Low, D A, Dempsey, J F. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys 2003; 30 (9): 24552464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Palmer, A L, Di Pietro, P, Alobaidli, S et al. Comparison of methods for the measurement of radiation dose distributions in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy: Ge-doped optical fiber, EBT3 Gafchromic film, and PRESAGE® radiochromic plastic. Med Phys 2013; 40 (6): 061707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Sakhalkar, H S, Adamovics, J, Ibbott, G, Oldham, M. A comprehensive evaluation of the PRESAGE/optical-CT 3D dosimetry system. Med Phys 2009; 36 (1): 7182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Petrokokkinos, L, Zourari, K, Pantelis, E et al. Dosimetric accuracy of a deterministic radiation transport based I192r brachytherapy treatment planning system. Part II: Monte Carlo and experimental verification of a multiple source dwell position plan employing a shielded applicator. Med Phys 2011; 38 (4): 19811992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Major, T, Polgár, C, Lövey, K, Fröhlich, G. Dosimetric characteristics of accelerated partial breast irradiation with CT image–based multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy: a single institution’s experience. Brachytherapy 2011; 10 (5): 421426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Pantelis, E, Papagiannis, P, Karaiskos, P et al. The effect of finite patient dimensions and tissue inhomogeneities on dosimetry planning of 192 Ir HDR breast brachytherapy: a Monte Carlo dose verification study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61 (5): 15961602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Poon, E, Verhaegen, F. Development of a scatter correction technique and its application to HDR 192Ir multicatheter breast brachytherapy. Med Phys 2009; 36 (8): 37033713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Chung, H, Jin, H, Dempsey, J F et al. Evaluation of surface and build‐up region dose for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancer. Med Phys 2005; 32 (8): 26822689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Zourari, K, Major, T, Herein, A, Peppa, V, Polgár, C, Papagiannis, P. A retrospective dosimetric comparison of TG43 and a commercially available MBDCA for an APBI brachytherapy patient cohort. Phys Med 2015; 31 (7): 669676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Awan, S B, Dini, S A, Hussain, M, Soleimani‐Meigooni, D, Meigooni, A S. Cylindrical coordinate based TG_43U1 parameters for dose calculation around elongated brachytherapy sources. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2008; 9: 123142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Aland, T, Karin, T, Kenny, J. Evaluation of a Gafchromic EBT2 film dosimetry system for radiotherapy quality assurance. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2011; 34: 251260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Patel, R R, Becker, S J, Das, R K, Mackie, T R. A dosimetric comparison of accelerated partial breast irradiation techniques: multicatheter Interstitital brachytherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and supine versus prone helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 935942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Dickler, A, Kirk, M, Choo, J et al. Treatment volume and dose optimization of Mammosite breast brachytherapy applicator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 469472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17 Hsu, I C, Lessard, E, Weinberg, V, Pouliot, J. Comparison of inverse planning simulated annealing and geometrical optimization for prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2004; 3: 147152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Lee, N, Chuang, C, Quivey, J M et al. Skin toxicity due to intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53: 630637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Hadley, S W, Kelly, R, Lam, K. Effects of immobilization mask material on surface dose. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2005; 6: 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Iqbal, K, Isa, M, Buzdar, S A, Gifford, K A, Afzal, M. Treatment planning evaluation of sliding window and multiple static segments technique in intensity modulated radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2013; 18 (2): 101106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Court, L E, Tisher, R B. Experimental evaluation of the impact of different head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning techniques on doses to the skin and shallow targets. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 607613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22 Panettieri, V, Smith, R L, Mason, NJ, Millar, J L. Comparison of IPSA and HIPO inverse planning optimization algorithms for prostate HDR brachytherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15 (6): 256266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Chung, H, Jin, H, Dempsey, J F et al. Evaluation of surface and build-up region dose for intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancer. Med Phys 2005; 32: 26822689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24 Sakhalkar, H, Sterling, D, Adamovics, J, Ibbott, G, Oldham, M. Investigation of the feasibility of relative 3D dosimetry in the Radiologic Physics Center Head and Neck IMRT phantom using Presage/optical‐CT. Med Phys 2009; 36 (7): 33713377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Vidovic, A K, Juang, T, Meltsner, S et al. An investigation of a PRESAGE® in vivo dosimeter for brachytherapy. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59 (14): 3893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Susan, L R, Ramiro, P. Dosimetric effects of an air cavity for the SAVI™ partial breast irradiation applicator. Med Phys 2010; 37: 39193926.Google Scholar
27 Newton, J, Thomas, A, Ibbott, G, Oldham, M. Preliminary commissioning investigations with the DMOS-RPC optical-CT Scanner. J Phys Conf Ser 2010; 250: 012078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28 Brady, S L, Brown, W E, Clift, C G, Yoo, S, Oldham, M. Investigation into the feasibility of using PRESAGE® /optical CT dosimetry for the verification of gating treatments. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 21872201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29 Iqbal, K, Gillin, M, Summers, P A, Dhanesar, S, Gifford, K A, Buzdar, S A. Quality assurance evaluation of spot scanning beam proton therapy with an anthropomorphic prostate phantom. Br J Radiol 2013; 86 (1031): 20130390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30 MacDougall, N D, Miquel, M E, Keevil, S F. Effects of phantom volume and shape on the accuracy of MRI BANG gel dosimetry using BANG3. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 4650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31 Sakhalkar, H, Oldham, M. Fast, high-resolution 3D dosimetry utilizing a novel optical-CT scanner incorporating tertiary telecentric collimation. Med Phys 2008; 35: 101111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32 Iqbal, K, Gifford, K A, Ibbott, G, Grant, L R, Buzdar, S A. Comparison of an anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter and Radiochromic film with a commercial radiation treatment planning system for breast IMRT: a feasibility study. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15: 363374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33 Guo, P, Adamovics, J, Oldham, M. A practical three-dimensional dosimetry system for radiation therapy. Med Phys 2006; 33: 39623972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34 Iqbal, K, Iqbal, M M, Akram, M, Altaf, S, Buzdar, S A. Dosimetric verification and quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using Gafchromic® EBT3 film. J Radiother Pract 2018; 17 (1): 8595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Iqbal, K, Ibbott, G S, Lafratta, R G, Gifford, K A, Buzdar, S A. Dosimetric characterisation of anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter and EBT2 film for partial breast radiotherapy. J Radiother Pract 2018; 17 (1): 96103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Gifford, K A, Iqbal, K, Grant, R L, Buzdar, S A, Ibbott, G S. Dosimetric verification of a commercial brachytherapy treatment planning system for a single Entry APBI Hybrid Catheter Device by PRESAGE® and Radiochromic Film. Brachytherapy 2013; 12: 1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 RTOG/NSABP. NSABP Protocol B-39/RTOG Protocol 0413: a randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer. Philadelphia, PA: RTOG; 2009.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Dosimetric feasibility of an anthropomorphic three-dimensional PRESAGE® dosimeter for verification of single entry hybrid catheter accelerated partial breast brachytherapy
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Dosimetric feasibility of an anthropomorphic three-dimensional PRESAGE® dosimeter for verification of single entry hybrid catheter accelerated partial breast brachytherapy
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Dosimetric feasibility of an anthropomorphic three-dimensional PRESAGE® dosimeter for verification of single entry hybrid catheter accelerated partial breast brachytherapy
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *