Cargando…

Dosimetric comparison of various optimization techniques for high dose rate brachytherapy of interstitial cervix implants

HDR brachytherapy treatment planning often involves optimization methods to calculate the dwell times and dwell positions of the radioactive source along specified afterloading catheters. The purpose of this study is to compare the dose distribution obtained with geometric optimization (GO) and volu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shwetha, Bondel, Ravikumar, Manickam, Katke, Aradhana, Supe, Sanjay S., VenkataGiri, Golhalli, Ramanand, Nanda, Pasha, Tanvir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5720427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20717091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3227
Descripción
Sumario:HDR brachytherapy treatment planning often involves optimization methods to calculate the dwell times and dwell positions of the radioactive source along specified afterloading catheters. The purpose of this study is to compare the dose distribution obtained with geometric optimization (GO) and volume optimization (VO) combined with isodose reshaping. This is a retrospective study of 10 cervix HDR interstitial brachytherapy implants planned using geometric optimization and treated with a dose of 6 Gy per fraction. Four treatment optimization plans were compared: geometric optimization (GO), volume optimization (VO), geometric optimization followed by isodose reshape (GO_IsoR), and volume optimization followed by isodose reshape (VO_IsoR). Dose volume histogram (DVH) was analyzed and the four plans were evaluated based on the dosimetric parameters: target coverage ([Formula: see text]), conformal index (COIN), homogeneity index (HI), dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) and natural dose ratio (NDR). Good target coverage by the prescription dose was achieved with GO_IsoR (mean [Formula: see text] of 88.11%), with 150% and 200% of the target volume receiving 32.0% and 10.4% of prescription dose, respectively. Slightly lower target coverage was achieved with VO_IsoR plans (mean [Formula: see text] of 86.11%) with a significant reduction in the tumor volume receiving high dose (mean [Formula: see text] of 28.29% and mean [Formula: see text] of 7.3%). Conformity and homogeneity were good with VO_IsoR (mean [Formula: see text] and mean [Formula: see text]) as compared to the other optimization techniques. VO_IsoR plans are superior in sparing the normal structures while also providing better conformity and homogeneity to the target. Clinically acceptable plans can be obtained by isodose reshaping provided the isodose lines are dragged carefully. PACS number: 87.53 Bn