Cargando…

Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application

Purpose: This report compares the Nucletron NPS and PLATO planning system for patients treated for cervix cancer. Materials and Methods: This study compares calculations generated using the older NPS (version 11.43) planning system and the more recent PLATO (version 14.1) system for two cases: 1) a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elhanafy, Osman A., Migahed, Mostafa D., Sakr, Hanim A., Ellithy, Mostafa, Das, Rupak K., Odau, Heath J., Thomadsen, Bruce R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2001
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5726045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11602007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v2i3.2604
_version_ 1783285660485943296
author Elhanafy, Osman A.
Migahed, Mostafa D.
Sakr, Hanim A.
Ellithy, Mostafa
Das, Rupak K.
Odau, Heath J.
Thomadsen, Bruce R.
author_facet Elhanafy, Osman A.
Migahed, Mostafa D.
Sakr, Hanim A.
Ellithy, Mostafa
Das, Rupak K.
Odau, Heath J.
Thomadsen, Bruce R.
author_sort Elhanafy, Osman A.
collection PubMed
description Purpose: This report compares the Nucletron NPS and PLATO planning system for patients treated for cervix cancer. Materials and Methods: This study compares calculations generated using the older NPS (version 11.43) planning system and the more recent PLATO (version 14.1) system for two cases: 1) a single dwell position and 2) an actual patient application using a tandem and ovoid. Results: For one dwell position: for NPS planning the dose for points along the source axis forward of the cable was 9.85% more than for symmetrically placed points in the cable direction. For PLATO, the same test gave rise to a difference of 10.2%. Comparing the two systems, NPS calculated doses for points in the forward direction 14% greater than those calculated by PLATO. The entry of points using the digitizer accounted for less than 1% of any difference. For the patient case: the dose difference between NPS and PLATO planning for all patient reference points entered from films ranged from 1 to 4%. The difference in dose between optimized and nonoptimized planning was approximately 0.5% for prescription points (points A), while for the bladder and rectum the differences were 6% and 20%, respectively with NPS, and with PLATO, 8% and 22%, respectively. Conclusion: This study highlighted the effects of the differences in the calculational algorithm between the older and newer planning systems from Nucletron. While the differences were minimal on the perpendicular bisector of the source, along the axis they become considerable. In a practical gynecological case, these differences mostly affect the dose to the rectum, since that organ receives the greatest proportion of its dose from rays near the same axis. Overall, the PLATO system plan required about 2.5% less integrated reference air kerma than the NPS plan for the same dose to point A. For either planning system, optimization is crucial in decreasing dose to bladder and rectal points. © 2001 American College of Medical Physics. [DOI: 10.1120/1.1384528] PACS number(s): 87.53.–j
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5726045
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2001
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57260452018-04-02 Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application Elhanafy, Osman A. Migahed, Mostafa D. Sakr, Hanim A. Ellithy, Mostafa Das, Rupak K. Odau, Heath J. Thomadsen, Bruce R. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Purpose: This report compares the Nucletron NPS and PLATO planning system for patients treated for cervix cancer. Materials and Methods: This study compares calculations generated using the older NPS (version 11.43) planning system and the more recent PLATO (version 14.1) system for two cases: 1) a single dwell position and 2) an actual patient application using a tandem and ovoid. Results: For one dwell position: for NPS planning the dose for points along the source axis forward of the cable was 9.85% more than for symmetrically placed points in the cable direction. For PLATO, the same test gave rise to a difference of 10.2%. Comparing the two systems, NPS calculated doses for points in the forward direction 14% greater than those calculated by PLATO. The entry of points using the digitizer accounted for less than 1% of any difference. For the patient case: the dose difference between NPS and PLATO planning for all patient reference points entered from films ranged from 1 to 4%. The difference in dose between optimized and nonoptimized planning was approximately 0.5% for prescription points (points A), while for the bladder and rectum the differences were 6% and 20%, respectively with NPS, and with PLATO, 8% and 22%, respectively. Conclusion: This study highlighted the effects of the differences in the calculational algorithm between the older and newer planning systems from Nucletron. While the differences were minimal on the perpendicular bisector of the source, along the axis they become considerable. In a practical gynecological case, these differences mostly affect the dose to the rectum, since that organ receives the greatest proportion of its dose from rays near the same axis. Overall, the PLATO system plan required about 2.5% less integrated reference air kerma than the NPS plan for the same dose to point A. For either planning system, optimization is crucial in decreasing dose to bladder and rectal points. © 2001 American College of Medical Physics. [DOI: 10.1120/1.1384528] PACS number(s): 87.53.–j John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2001-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5726045/ /pubmed/11602007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v2i3.2604 Text en © 2001 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
Elhanafy, Osman A.
Migahed, Mostafa D.
Sakr, Hanim A.
Ellithy, Mostafa
Das, Rupak K.
Odau, Heath J.
Thomadsen, Bruce R.
Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application
title Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application
title_full Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application
title_fullStr Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application
title_short Comparison of two planning systems for HDR brachytherapy gynecological application
title_sort comparison of two planning systems for hdr brachytherapy gynecological application
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5726045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11602007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v2i3.2604
work_keys_str_mv AT elhanafyosmana comparisonoftwoplanningsystemsforhdrbrachytherapygynecologicalapplication
AT migahedmostafad comparisonoftwoplanningsystemsforhdrbrachytherapygynecologicalapplication
AT sakrhanima comparisonoftwoplanningsystemsforhdrbrachytherapygynecologicalapplication
AT ellithymostafa comparisonoftwoplanningsystemsforhdrbrachytherapygynecologicalapplication
AT dasrupakk comparisonoftwoplanningsystemsforhdrbrachytherapygynecologicalapplication
AT odauheathj comparisonoftwoplanningsystemsforhdrbrachytherapygynecologicalapplication
AT thomadsenbrucer comparisonoftwoplanningsystemsforhdrbrachytherapygynecologicalapplication