Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212-4772, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010 May 28;11(3):3235. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3235.
The purpose of this study is to dosimetrically compare two plans generated using single dwell position method (SDPM) and multiple dwell position methods (MDPM) in MammoSite high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy planning for 19 breast cancer patients. In computed tomography (CT) image-based HDR planning, a surface optimization technique was used in both methods. Following dosimetric parameters were compared for fraction 1 plans: %PTV_EVAL (planning target volume for plan evaluation) coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI), dose con-formal index (COIN), maximum dose to skin and ipsilateral lung, and breast tissue volume receiving 150% (V150[cc]) and 200% (V200[cc]) of the prescribed dose. In addition, a plan was retrospectively generated for each fraction 2-10 to simulate the clinical situation where the fraction 1 plan was used for fractions 2-10 without modification. In order to create nine derived plans for each method and for each of the 19 patients, the catheter location and contours of target and critical structures were defined on the CT images acquired prior to each fraction 2-10, while using the same dwell-time distribution as used for fraction 1 (original plan). Interfraction dose variations were evaluated for 19 patients by comparing the derived nine plans (each for fractions 2-10) with the original plan (fraction 1) using the same dosimetric parameters used for fraction 1 plan comparison. For the fraction 1 plan comparison, the MDPM resulted in slightly increased %PTV_EVAL coverage, COIN, V150[cc] and V200[cc] values by an average of 1.2%, 0.025, 0.5 cc and 0.7cc, respectively, while slightly decreased DHI, maximum skin and ipsilateral lung dose by an average of 0.003, 3.2 cGy and 5.8 cGy, respectively. For the inter-fraction dose variation comparison, the SDPM resulted in slightly smaller variations in %PTV_EVAL coverage, DHI, maximum skin dose and V150[cc] values by an average of 0.4%, 0.0005, 0.5 cGy and 0.2 cc, respectively, while slightly higher average variations in COIN, maximum ipsilateral lung dose and V200[cc] values by 0.0028, 0.2 cGy and 0.2 cc, respectively. All differences were too small to be clinically significant. Compared to the MDPM, the SDPM combined with a surface optimization technique can generate a clinically comparable fraction 1 treatment plan with a similar interfraction dose variation if a single source is carefully positioned at the center of the balloon catheter.
本研究旨在通过比较两种不同的计划,来对单驻留位(SDPM)和多驻留位(MDPM)在 MammoSite 高剂量率(HDR)近距离治疗 19 例乳腺癌患者中的应用进行剂量学比较。在 CT 图像引导的 HDR 计划中,两种方法均采用表面优化技术。比较了第 1 部分计划的以下剂量学参数:PTV_EVAL(计划评估的目标体积)覆盖率、剂量均匀性指数(DHI)、剂量适形指数(COIN)、皮肤和同侧肺的最大剂量,以及接受 150%(V150[cc])和 200%(V200[cc])处方剂量的乳腺组织体积。此外,为了模拟第 1 部分计划用于第 2-10 部分的情况,还回顾性地为每个第 2-10 部分生成了一个计划。为了为每个方法和 19 名患者中的每一个生成 9 个衍生计划,在获得第 2-10 部分的每个部分之前,在 CT 图像上定义了导管位置和靶区及关键结构的轮廓,同时使用与第 1 部分(原始计划)相同的驻留时间分布。通过比较使用相同剂量学参数的 19 名患者的 9 个衍生计划(每个部分 2-10)与原始计划(第 1 部分),评估了 19 名患者的分次剂量变化。对于第 1 部分计划比较,MDPM 导致 PTV_EVAL 覆盖率、COIN、V150[cc]和 V200[cc]值分别平均增加 1.2%、0.025、0.5cc 和 0.7cc,而 DHI、最大皮肤剂量和同侧肺剂量分别平均减少 0.003、3.2cGy 和 5.8cGy。对于分次剂量变化比较,SDPM 导致 PTV_EVAL 覆盖率、DHI、最大皮肤剂量和 V150[cc]值的变化平均分别减少 0.4%、0.0005、0.5cGy 和 0.2cc,而 COIN、最大同侧肺剂量和 V200[cc]值的变化平均分别增加 0.0028、0.2cGy 和 0.2cc。所有差异均太小,无临床意义。与 MDPM 相比,如果小心地将单源放置在球囊导管的中心,则 SDPM 与表面优化技术相结合可以生成具有相似分次剂量变化的临床可比的第 1 部分治疗计划。