Simulation of different applicator positions for treatment of a presacral tumour.

INTRODUCTION

Proximally located presacral recurrences of rectal carcinomas are known to be difficult to heat due to the complex anatomy of the pelvis, which reflect, shield and diffract the power. This study is to clarify whether a change of position of the Sigma-Eye applicator in this region can improve the heating.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Finite element (FE) planning calculations were made for a phantom model with a proximal presacral tumour using a fixed 100 MHz radiofrequency radiation. Shifts of the applicator were simulated in 1 cm steps in x-(lateral), y-(posterior) and z-(longitudinal) direction. Computations also considered the network effects of the Sigma-Eye applicator. Optimisation of the phases and amplitudes for all positions were performed after solving the bioheat-transfer-equation. The parameters T90, T50, sensitivity, hot spot volume and total deposited power have been sampled for every applicator position with optimised plans and a standard plan.

RESULTS

The ability to heat a presacral tumour clearly depends on the applicator position, for standard antenna adjustment and also for optimised steering of the Sigma-Eye applicator. The gamma-direction (anterior-posterior) is very sensitive. Using optimised steering for each position, in z-direction (longitudinal), we found an unexpected additional optimum at 8 cm cranial from the middle position of the phantom. The x-direction (lateral) is in a clinical setting less important and shows only smaller changes of T90 with an expected optimum in the central position. A positioning of the applicator in the axial and anterior position of the mid-pubic symphysis should be avoided for treatment of the presacral region, regardless of the used adjustment. Use of amplitude and phase optimisation yields better T90 values than plans optimised only by phases, but they are much more sensitive for small variations of phases and amplitudes during a treatment, and the total power of the Sigma-Eye applicator can be restricted by the treatment software.

CONCLUSIONS

Complex geometry of the human pelvis seems to be the reason for the difficulties to warm up the proximal presacral region. The assumption that every position can be balanced by a proper phase adaption, is true only in a small range. A centring of the applicator on the mid-pubic symphysis to heat this region should be avoided. From the practical point of view improved warming should be performed by optimisation of phases only.