Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2016.39.2.05

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

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)
Publication Information
Journal of radiological science and technology / v.39, no.2, 2016 , pp. 163-170 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Brachytherapy; HDR $^{192}Ir$ source; ICRU 38; Treatment planning system;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
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   DOI
3 Khan F.M.: The physics of radiation therapy, Fourth edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Chapter 15, 343, 2010
4 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   DOI
5 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
6 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   DOI
7 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   DOI
8 Papagiannis P., Angelopoulos A., Pantelis E. et al.: Dosimetry comparison of $^{192}$Ir sources, Med. Phys., 29, 2239-2246, 2002   DOI
9 Gerbulet A., PPtter R., Mazeron J.J, Meertens H., Limbergen E.V.: The GEC ESTRO Handbook of Brachytherapy, 2002
10 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   DOI
11 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   DOI
12 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   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 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   DOI
15 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   DOI