The Physical Dose Difference of Three Types of Implantation on the CTV and Lungs in Interstitial Brachytherapy
Science Journal of Public Health
Volume 8, Issue 2, March 2020, Pages: 50-55
Received: Apr. 11, 2020; Accepted: May 3, 2020; Published: May 28, 2020
Views 62      Downloads 26
Authors
Jing Zhang, Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
Bo Yang, Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
Haowen Pang, Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
Guangpeng Zhang, Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
Renjin Chen, Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
Lei Li, Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Purpose: To study the difference of physical dose of target volume and lungs among actual irregular arrangement multi-needle interstitial brachytherapy plan (AIBP), virtual regular arrangement multi-needle interstitial brachytherapy plan (VRBP) and virtual single needle center point interstitial brachytherapy plan (VSBP). Methods: According to the inclusion criteria: the CTV shape was approximately spherical and multiply needles arrangement was irregular. Thirteen lung cancer patients underwent interstitial brachytherapy were collected. Based on the thirteen CT data sets, the AIBP, VRBP and VSBP were respectively designed, then we collected the dose metrics involving: the minimum dosage received by 95% of the CTV (D95), D90, D80, D50 and D30; the percentage of lung volume receiving a dose of ≥ 5 Gy (V5), V20, V30 and the mean lung dose (MLD); D50 of heart; the maximum dose (Dmax) of spinal cord and the Dmax of ribs. The differences were tested by the two-sample paired (Wilcoxon) signed rank test, a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Result: The differences of D95, D90, D80, D50 and D30 of CTV, D50 of heart, Dmax of spinal and Dmax of ribs were not statistical significant (P>0.05) and the V5, V20, V30 and MLD of lungs and ipsilateral lung were statistical significant (P<0.05) between AIBP and VRBP. The differences of D95, D90, D80 and D50 of CTV, D50 of heart, Dmax of spinal cord, Dmax of ribs, V5, V20, V30 and MLD of lungs and ipsilateral lung were not statistical significant (P>0.05) except for D30 of CTV (P<0.05) between AIBP and VRBP. Conclusion: In interstitial brachytherapy for lung tumor, the arrangement of implantation needles could influenced the dose distribution in target and lungs. If the CTV shape could be approximately considered to be a spherical and a regular arrangement of multiply needles was difficult to achieve; the lung dose of the AIBP might have no obvious advantage over the VSBP and the VSBP should be worth a try.
Keywords
Interstitial Brachytherapy, Lung Cancer, Dose Distribution
To cite this article
Jing Zhang, Bo Yang, Haowen Pang, Guangpeng Zhang, Renjin Chen, Lei Li, The Physical Dose Difference of Three Types of Implantation on the CTV and Lungs in Interstitial Brachytherapy, Science Journal of Public Health. Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020, pp. 50-55. doi: 10.11648/j.sjph.20200802.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Shrieve D C. Basic principles of radiobiology applied to radiotherapy of benign intracranial tumors. [J]. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 2004, 15 (4): 467-79.
[2]
Das, R. K. Icru 58 (dose and volume specification for reporting interstitial therapy), by international commission on radiation units and measurements. Medical Physics 2008; 25 (7), 1225-1225.
[3]
Kolkman I. Optimization of interstitial volume implants - Radiotherapy and Oncology [J]. Radiotherapy & Oncology Journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology, 1994, 31 (3): 229-239.
[4]
Bo Y, Xiaoyang S, Haowen P, et al. Comparative Study on Dose Distribution of Two Dwell Position Optimization Schemes in Interstitial Brachytherapy for Lung Cancer [J]. China Medical Devices, 2018, 33 (12): 57-60.
[5]
Jamema S V, Saju S, Shetty U M, et al. Dosimetric comparison of inverse optimization with geometric optimization in combination with graphical optimization for HDR prostate implants.[J]. Journal of Medical Physics, 2006, 31 (2): 89-94.
[6]
Anacak Y, Esassolak M, Aydin A, et al. Effect of geometrical optimization on the treatment volumes and the dose homogeneity of biplane interstitial brachytherapy implants [J]. Radiotherapy & Oncology, 1997, 45 (1): 71-76.
[7]
Rembowska A M E, Cook M, Hoskin P J, et al. The stepping source dosimetry system as an extension of the manchester system [J]. Radiotherapy & Oncology, 1996, 39 (39): 25-25.
[8]
Bo Y, Xiaoyang S, Haowen P, et al. Dosimetric analysis of rib interference of the CTV during interstitial brachytherapy of lung tumors [J]. Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy, 2017, 9 (6): 566-571.
[9]
Ricke J, Wust P, Wieners G, et al. CT-guided interstitial single-fraction brachytherapy of lung tumors: phase I results of a novel technique. [J]. Chest, 2005, 127 (6): 2237.
[10]
Imamura F, Ueno K, Kusunoki Y, et al. High-dose-rate brachytherapy for small-sized peripherally located lung cancer [J]. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2006, 182 (12): 703-707.
[11]
Sharma D N, Rath G K, Thulkar S, et al. Computerized tomography-guided percutaneous high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for malignant lung lesions. [J]. Journal of Cancer Research & Therapeutics, 2011, 7 (2): 174-179.
[12]
Peters N, Wieners G, Pech M, et al. CT-guided interstitial brachytherapy of primary and secondary lung malignancies: results of a prospective phase II trial [J]. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2008, 184 (6): 296.
[13]
Stewart A, Parashar B, Patel M, et al. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for thoracic brachytherapy for lung cancer [J]. Brachytherapy, 2015, 15 (1): 1.
[14]
Lee A, Supariwala A, Venkat P, et al. Interstitial CT-Guided Lung Brachytherapy [J]. Brachytherapy, 2019, 18 (3): S84-S85.
[15]
Dou H, Jiang S, Yang Z, et al. Design and validation of a CT-guided robotic system for lung cancer brachytherapy [J]. Medical Physics, 2017, 44 (9).
[16]
Irina F, Kyveli Z, Vasileios L, et al. A comparative assessment of inhomogeneity and finite patient dimension effects in, 60 Co, and, 192 Ir high-dose-rate brachytherapy [J]. Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy, 2018, 10 (1): 73-84.
[17]
Tselis N, Ferentinos K, Kolotas C, et al. Computed tomography-guided interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy in the local treatment of primary and secondary intrathoracic malignancies [J]. Journal of Thoracic Oncology Official Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2011, 6 (3): 545.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186