Cargando…
Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example
This study identifies basic dosimetric differences between two designs for intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) in current clinical practice and ongoing trials and their clinical implications within beta emitting systems using P‐32 as an example. The two designs are (i) the wire‐type source, where the...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2003
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12540819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i1.2542 |
_version_ | 1783285359041314816 |
---|---|
author | Lehmann, J. King, C. R. |
author_facet | Lehmann, J. King, C. R. |
author_sort | Lehmann, J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study identifies basic dosimetric differences between two designs for intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) in current clinical practice and ongoing trials and their clinical implications within beta emitting systems using P‐32 as an example. The two designs are (i) the wire‐type source, where the radioactive source material is confined to a wirelike structure within the vessel lumen, and (ii) the balloon‐surface source, where the radioactive source material is distributed over a surface area (balloon‐wall) which is brought in close proximity with the vessel wall. Using Monte Carlo simulations with the EGS4 code, the target coverage, the influence of centering errors, and the perturbation of the dose distribution caused by metallic stents have been compared. The radial dose fall‐off in the target region was found to be steeper for balloon surface systems compared with wire systems. The inner lumen wall dose for a balloon surface source was 25% higher than that for a wirelike source (2.5 mm vessel diameter). However, the comparably shallower fall‐off from wire‐type systems is very sensitive to centering uncertainties. A 0.5 mm displacement, for example, will cause the dose to change by a factor of 2 at the inner vessel wall and by a factor of 1.8 at the prescription point. It is shown that the interference from metallic stents is more significant for wire‐type systems than it is for balloon‐surface‐type systems, where double the dose variation beyond the stent at the radial prescription distance may occur. Centering uncertainties dominate the dose perturbation effects for wire‐type systems. Balloon‐surface‐type designs show a more predictable dose distribution that features, however, a higher inner vessel surface dose. Since a direct clinical comparison of systems of both types is not likely, these findings should be considered when interpreting clinical results from treatments with either type of source and, possibly, for future source design. © 2003 American College of Medical Physics. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5724438 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2003 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57244382018-04-02 Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example Lehmann, J. King, C. R. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This study identifies basic dosimetric differences between two designs for intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) in current clinical practice and ongoing trials and their clinical implications within beta emitting systems using P‐32 as an example. The two designs are (i) the wire‐type source, where the radioactive source material is confined to a wirelike structure within the vessel lumen, and (ii) the balloon‐surface source, where the radioactive source material is distributed over a surface area (balloon‐wall) which is brought in close proximity with the vessel wall. Using Monte Carlo simulations with the EGS4 code, the target coverage, the influence of centering errors, and the perturbation of the dose distribution caused by metallic stents have been compared. The radial dose fall‐off in the target region was found to be steeper for balloon surface systems compared with wire systems. The inner lumen wall dose for a balloon surface source was 25% higher than that for a wirelike source (2.5 mm vessel diameter). However, the comparably shallower fall‐off from wire‐type systems is very sensitive to centering uncertainties. A 0.5 mm displacement, for example, will cause the dose to change by a factor of 2 at the inner vessel wall and by a factor of 1.8 at the prescription point. It is shown that the interference from metallic stents is more significant for wire‐type systems than it is for balloon‐surface‐type systems, where double the dose variation beyond the stent at the radial prescription distance may occur. Centering uncertainties dominate the dose perturbation effects for wire‐type systems. Balloon‐surface‐type designs show a more predictable dose distribution that features, however, a higher inner vessel surface dose. Since a direct clinical comparison of systems of both types is not likely, these findings should be considered when interpreting clinical results from treatments with either type of source and, possibly, for future source design. © 2003 American College of Medical Physics. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5724438/ /pubmed/12540819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i1.2542 Text en © 2003 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Lehmann, J. King, C. R. Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example |
title | Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example |
title_full | Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example |
title_fullStr | Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example |
title_full_unstemmed | Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example |
title_short | Wire or coated balloon? Searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [Formula: see text] as an example |
title_sort | wire or coated balloon? searching for an optimal source for intravascular brachytherapy with β emitters using [formula: see text] as an example |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12540819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i1.2542 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lehmannj wireorcoatedballoonsearchingforanoptimalsourceforintravascularbrachytherapywithbemittersusingformulaseetextasanexample AT kingcr wireorcoatedballoonsearchingforanoptimalsourceforintravascularbrachytherapywithbemittersusingformulaseetextasanexample |