DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Treatment Planning on Dosimetric Differences Between 192Ir Sources for High-Dose Rate Brachytherapy

고선량률 근접치료에서 이리듐-192 선원의 선량특성 차이에 관한 치료계획 비교

  • Yang, Oh-Nam (Department of Radiology, Mokpo Science University) ;
  • Shin, Seong Soo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Gangenung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Ahn, Woo Sang (Department of Radiation Oncology, Gangenung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Dae-Yong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Gangenung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kwon, Kyung-Tae (Department of Radiologic Technology, Donam Health University) ;
  • Lim, Cheong-Hwan (Department of Radiological Science, Hanseo University) ;
  • Lee, Sang Ho (Department of Radiological Science, Seonam University) ;
  • Choi, Wonsik (Department of Radiation Oncology, Gangenung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • 양오남 (목포과학대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 신성수 (울산의대 강릉아산병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 안우상 (울산의대 강릉아산병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김대용 (울산의대 강릉아산병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 권경태 (동남보건대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 임청환 (한서대학교 방사선학과) ;
  • 이상호 (서남대학교 방사선학과) ;
  • 최원식 (울산의대 강릉아산병원 방사선종양학과)
  • Received : 2016.04.26
  • Accepted : 2016.06.13
  • Published : 2016.06.30

Abstract

To evaluate whether the difference in geometrical characteristics between high-dose-rate (HDR) $^{192}Ir$ sources would influence the dose distributions of intracavitary brachytherapy. Two types of microSelectron HDR $^{192}Ir$ sources (classic and new models) were selected in this study. Two-dimensional (2D) treatment plans for classic and new sources were generated by using PLATO treatment planning system. We compared the point A, point B, and bladder and rectum reference points based on ICRU 38 recommendation. The radial dose function of the new source agrees with that of the classic source except difference of up to 2.6% at the nearest radial distance. The differences of anisotropy functions agree within 2% for r=1, 3, and 5 cm and $20^{\circ}$ < ${\theta}$ < $165^{\circ}$. The largest discrepancies of anisotropy functions reached up to 27% for ${\theta}$ < $20^{\circ}$ at r=0.25 cm and were up to 13%, 10%, and 7% at r=1, 3, and 5 cm for ${\theta}$ > $170^{\circ}$, respectively. There were no significant differences in doses of point A, point B, and bladder point for the treatment plans between the new and classic sources. For the ICRU rectum point, the percent dose difference was on average 0.65% and up to 1.0%. The dose discrepancies between two treatment plans are mainly affected due to the geometrical difference of the source and the sealed capsule.

강내 근접치료(intracavitary brachytherapy)에서 다른 고선량률 $^{192}Ir$ 선원의 기하학적 특성으로 인한 선량분포의 차이를 비교 및 분석하였다. 본 연구에서는 Nucletron사에서 제작된 microSelectron-v1 (classic) 선원이 2014년 이후로 판매가 종료되면서 새로운 microSelectron-v2 (new) 선원과의 선량분포 차이를 치료계획시스템을 이용하여 비교 및 분석하였다. 두 선원에서 획득된 선량분포를 비교하기 위하여 point A, point B, ICRU 방광 및 직장의 기준점을 분석인자로 사용하였다. 선원과 가까운 거리에서는 microSelectron-v2 선원의 반경선량함수(radial dose function)가 microSelectron-v1 선원 보다 최대 2.6% 높았다. 선원으로부터 거리가 1, 3, 그리고 5 cm의 비등방성함수(anisotropy function)는 $20^{\circ}$ <${\theta}$ < $165^{\circ}$에서 두 선원 간에 2% 이내에서 잘 일치하였다. 다만, 거리가 0.25 cm에서 ${\theta}$ < $20^{\circ}$ 구간에서는 두 선원 간 최대 27%의 차이를 보였으며, 거리가 1, 3, 그리고 5 cm에서 ${\theta}$ > $170^{\circ}$ 구간에서는 두 선원 간 각각 13%, 10%, 그리고 7% 차이를 보였다. 두 선원을 이용한 치료계획에서는 point A, point B, 방광에 들어가는 선량의 차이는 없었으며, ICRU에서 권고하는 직장에 들어가는 선량 지점은 microSelectron-v2 선원이 microSelectron-v1선원보다 평균 0.65%, 최대 약 1%까지 높게 평가되었다. 두 선원 간의 선량분포 차이는 주로 선원의 기하학적 차이와 선원을 감싸고 있는 스테인리스 스틸(stainless steel) 캡슐의 두께 차이로 발생되지만 두 선원에서의 선량분포 차이는 1% 이내이므로 새로운 모델의 선원으로 교체하여 사용하더라도 근접치료에서의 선량분포는 임상적으로 크지 않을 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Park S.G., Chang H.S., Choi E.K., Yi B.Y.: Remote afterloading high dose rate brachytherapy AMC experiances, J. Korean Soc. Ther. Radiol., 10(2), 267-275, 1992
  2. Park D.W., Kim Y.S., Park S.H. et al.: A comparison of dose distributions of HDR intracavitary brachytherapy using different sources and treatment planning systems, Appl. Radiat. Isot., 67(7-8), 1426-1431, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2009.02.066
  3. Gerbulet A., PPtter R., Mazeron J.J, Meertens H., Limbergen E.V.: The GEC ESTRO Handbook of Brachytherapy, 2002
  4. Keum M.H., Park S.H., Ahn S.D., Cho W.K.: Evaluation of brachytherapy facility shielding status in Korea obtained from radiation safety reports, Nucl. Eng. and Technology, 45(5), 695-700, 2013 https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.08.2012.093
  5. Williamson J.F., Li Z.: Monte Carlo aided dosimetry of the microselectron pulsed and high dose-rate $^{192}$Ir sources, Med. Phys., 22(6), 809-819, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597483
  6. Daskalov G.M., LPffler E., Williamson J.F.: Monte Carlo-aided dosimetry of a new high dose-rate brachytherapy source, Med. Phys., 25(11), 2200-2208, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598418
  7. Rivard M.J., Coursey B.M., DeWerd L.A. et al.: Updated of AAPM Task Group No. 43 report; A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations, Med. Phys., 31, 633-674, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1646040
  8. Khan F.M.: The physics of radiation therapy, Fourth edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Chapter 15, 343, 2010
  9. Tod M., Meredith W.A.: A dosage system for use in the treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix, Br. J. Radiol., 11, 809-824, 1938 https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-11-132-809
  10. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU): Dose and volume specification for reporting intracavitary therapy in gynecology, ICRU report No. 38, Bethesda, MD, 1985
  11. Baltas D., Karaiskos P., Papagiannis P., Sakelliou L., Loeffler E., Zamboglou N.: Beta versus gamma dosimetry close to Ir-192 brachytherapy sources, Med. Phys., 28, 1875-1882, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1395038
  12. Wang R., Li X.A.: Dose characterization in the near-source region for two high dose rate brachytherapy sources, Med. Phys., 29, 1678-1686, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1493780
  13. Papagiannis P., Angelopoulos A., Pantelis E. et al.: Dosimetry comparison of $^{192}$Ir sources, Med. Phys., 29, 2239-2246, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1508378
  14. Patel N., Chiu-Tsao S., Ho Y. et al.: High beta and electron dose from $^{192}$Ir: implications for 'Gamma' intravascular brachytherapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 54, 972-980, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03044-4
  15. Taylor R.E.P, Rogers D.W.O.: EGSnrc Monte Carlo calculated dosimetry parameters for $^{192}$Ir and $^{169}$Yb brachytherapy sources, Med. Phys., 35(11), 4933-4944, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2987676