Logo image
Back
Comparison of single and multiple dwell position methods in MammoSite high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy planning
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Comparison of single and multiple dwell position methods in MammoSite high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy planning

Yongbok Kim, Mark G. Trombetta and Moyed Miften
Journal of applied clinical medical physics, v 11(3)
28 May 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3235
PMID: 20717093
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3235View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)CC BY V4.0,  Open

Abstract

HDR brachytherapy interfraction dose variation MammoSite Radiation Oncology Physics single and multiple dwell position methods
The purpose of this study is to dosimetrically compare two plans generated using single dwell position method (SDPM) and multiple dwell position methods (MDPM) in MammoSite high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy planning for 19 breast cancer patients. In computed tomography (CT) image‐based HDR planning, a surface optimization technique was used in both methods. Following dosimetric parameters were compared for fraction 1 plans: %PTV_EVAL (planning target volume for plan evaluation) coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI), dose conformal index (COIN), maximum dose to skin and ipsilateral lung, and breast tissue volume receiving 150% (V150[cc]) and 200% (V200[cc]) of the prescribed dose. In addition, a plan was retrospectively generated for each fraction 2–10 to simulate the clinical situation where the fraction 1 plan was used for fractions 2–10 without modification. In order to create nine derived plans for each method and for each of the 19 patients, the catheter location and contours of target and critical structures were defined on the CT images acquired prior to each fraction 2–10, while using the same dwell‐time distribution as used for fraction 1 (original plan). Interfraction dose variations were evaluated for 19 patients by comparing the derived nine plans (each for fractions 2–10) with the original plan (fraction 1) using the same dosimetric parameters used for fraction 1 plan comparison. For the fraction 1 plan comparison, the MDPM resulted in slightly increased %PTV_EVAL coverage, COIN, V150[cc] and V200[cc] values by an average of 1.2%, 0.025, 0.5 cc and 0.7 cc, respectively, while slightly decreased DHI, maximum skin and ipsilateral lung dose by an average of 0.003, 3.2 cGy and 5.8 cGy, respectively. For the interfraction dose variation comparison, the SDPM resulted in slightly smaller variations in %PTV_EVAL coverage, DHI, maximum skin dose and V150[cc] values by an average of 0.4%, 0.0005, 0.5 cGy and 0.2 cc, respectively, while slightly higher average variations in COIN, maximum ipsilateral lung dose and V200[cc] values by 0.0028, 0.2 cGy and 0.2 cc, respectively. All differences were too small to be clinically significant. Compared to the MDPM, the SDPM combined with a surface optimization technique can generate a clinically comparable fraction 1 treatment plan with a similar interfraction dose variation if a single source is carefully positioned at the center of the balloon catheter. PACS number: 87.53.Jw

Metrics

5 Record Views
3 citations in Web of Science
5 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Logo image