Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:43:25.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of image-based three-dimensional treatment planning using AcurosTM BV and AAPM TG-43 algorithm for intracavitary brachytherapy of carcinoma cervix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Mourougan Sinnatamby ,
Vivekanandan Nagarajan ,
K S. Reddy ,
Gunaseelan Karunanidhi  and
Vivekanandam Singhavajala
Mourougan Sinnatamby*
Affiliation:
Regional Cancer Centre, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India
Vivekanandan Nagarajan
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai, India
K S. Reddy
Affiliation:
Regional Cancer Centre, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India Department of Oncology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry, India
Gunaseelan Karunanidhi
Affiliation:
Regional Cancer Centre, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India
Vivekanandam Singhavajala
Affiliation:
Regional Cancer Centre, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India
*
Correspondence to: Mourougan Sinnatamby, Radiotherapy, Regional Cancer Centre, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Dhanvantri Nagar, Puducherry 605006, India. E-mail: mourougans@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

To compare the image-based three-dimensional treatment planning using AcurosTM BV and AAPM TG-43 algorithm for intracavitary brachytherapy of carcinoma cervix.

Materials and methods

Twenty-seven patients with cancer cervix, stage IIB or IIIB with vaginal involvement limited to the upper third of the vagina was included into the study. Intracavitary treatments with the patient in this study done with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging compatible ring applicator. Groupe European de Curietherapie and European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology recommended doses to target volumes and organs at risk compared using dose volume histogram.

Results

The mean value of Point ‘A’ dose was compared between AcurosTM BV and TG-43, which indicates 0·13% difference. The differences in the mean dose to gross tumour volume for various volumes are V100% 0·28%, V150% 1·22% and V200% 1·03%; all volumes showed small difference but statistical significant (p<0·05). The mean dose of high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) D90 using AcurosTM BV was 8·47 Gy, which was 1·63% less compared with TG-43. The mean point A dose using AcurosTM BV is 1·04 times the dose to D90 of mean HRCTV. The same difference was observed in comparison with TG43. D2cc and D0·1cc of the bladder, rectum and sigmoid showed a statistically significant difference (p<0·05) in comparison with TG-43.

Conclusion

The differences in dosimetric parameters between the AcurosTM BV and TG-43 proved to be statistically significant. The difference is very small, and they are clinically insignificant.

Keywords

AcurosTM BVHDR brachytherapyTG-43uterine cervix
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 254 - 262
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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. Pötter, R, Haie-Meder, C, Van Limbergen, E et al. Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy – 3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiother Oncol 2006; 78 (1): 67–77.Google Scholar
2. Haie-Meder, C, Pötter, R, Van Limbergen, E, Briot, E, De Brabandere, M, Dimopoulos, J et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 2005; 74 (3): 235–245.Google Scholar
3.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report No.38. Dose and volume specification for reporting intracavitary therapy in gynecology. Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 1985;38.Google Scholar
4. Beaulieu, L, Carlsson Tedgren, A, Carrier, J-F et al. Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: Current status and recommendations for clinical implementation. Med Phys 2012; 39 (10): 6208.Google Scholar
5. Nath, R, Anderson, L L, Luxton, G, Weaver, K, Williamson, J F, Meigooni, A S. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No.43. Med Phys 1995; 22 (2): 209–234.Google Scholar
6. Rivard, M J, Coursey, B M, DeWerd, L A et al. Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys 2004; 31 (3): 633–674.Google Scholar
7. Rivard, M J, Butler, W M, DeWerd, L A et al. Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report. Med Phys 2007; 34 (6): 2187–2205.Google Scholar
8. Mikell, J K, Mourtada, F. Dosimetric impact of an 192Ir brachytherapy source cable length modeled using a grid-based Boltzmann transport equation solver. Med Phys 2010; 37 (9): 4733–4743.Google Scholar
9. Zourari, K, Pantelis, E, Moutsatsos, A et al. Dosimetric accuracy of a deterministic radiation transport based 192Ir brachytherapy treatment planning system. Part I: single sources and bounded homogeneous geometries. Med Phys 2010; 37 (2): 649–661.Google Scholar
10. Petrokokkinos, L, Zourari, K, Pantelis, E et al. Dosimetric accuracy of a deterministic radiation transport based 192Ir 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): 1981–1992.Google Scholar
11. Gifford, K A, Price, M J, Horton, J L, Wareing, TA, Mourtada, F. Optimization of deterministic transport parameters for the calculation of the dose distribution around a high dose-rate 192Ir brachytherapy source. Med Phys 2008; 35 (6): 2279–2285.Google Scholar
12. Gifford, K A, Wareing, T A, Failla, G, Horton, J L, Eifel, P J, Mourtada, F. Comparison of a 3-D multi-group SN particle transport code with Monte Carlo for intracavitary brachytherapy of the cervix uteri. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11 (1): 3103.Google Scholar
13. Vassiliev, O N, Wareing, T A, McGhee, J, Failla, G, Salehpour, M R, Mourtada, F. Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55 (3): 581–598.Google Scholar
14. Kapur, T, Egger, J, Damato, A, Schmidt, E J, Viswanathan, A N. 3-T MR-guided brachytherapy for gynecologic malignancies. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30 (9): 1279–1290.Google Scholar
15. Sinnatamby, M, Nagarajan, V, Reddy, K S, Karunanidhi, G, Singhavajala, V. Dosimetric comparison of AcurosTM BV with AAPM TG43 dose calculation formalism in breast interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy with the use of metal catheters. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2015; 7 (4): 273–279.Google Scholar
16. Mikell, J K, Klopp, A H, Gonzalez, G M N et al. Impact of heterogeneity-based dose calculation using a deterministic grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for intracavitary brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83 (3): 417–422.Google Scholar
17. Russell, K R, Ahnesjö, A. Dose calculation in brachytherapy for a 192Ir source using a primary and scatter dose separation technique. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41 (6): 1007–1024.Google Scholar
18. Hyer, D E, Sheybani, A, Jacobson, G M, Kim, Y. The dosimetric impact of heterogeneity corrections in high-dose-rate 192Ir brachytherapy for cervical cancer: Investigation of both conventional Point-A and volume-optimized plans. Brachytherapy 2012; 11 (6): 515–520.Google Scholar
19. Libby, B, Ter-Antonyan, R, Schneider, B F. Comparison of TG43 to Acuros Dose Calculations for high-dose-rate gynecological brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2011; 10: S66.Google Scholar
20. Mikell, J K, Klopp, A H, Price, M, Mourtada, F. Commissioning of a grid-based Boltzmann solver for cervical cancer brachytherapy treatment planning with shielded colpostats. Brachytherapy 2013; 12 (6): 645–653.Google Scholar