PubMed · 7476724
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
O A Sauer. 1995. Source localization for brachytherapy implants loaded with an afterloader.. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597519
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To assess the role of geographic misses in the interstitial boost treatment of breast cancer patients and to evaluate methods of optimizing breast implants in design, performance, and dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: During lumpectomy, the tumor excision sites of 89 patients were marked by five hemoclips. Postoperative radiographs demonstrated the clips' positions with respect to the extension of the surgical cavity, which was demarcated by air and hematoseroma. Twenty-seven selected patients received interstitial boosts to the tumor bed. The implant was first designed according to the clinical assumptions of the tumor bed's topography and then compared with the radiological findings. Prior to brachytherapy, the planning of the implant's dimension and the needle guidance was performed under simulator control. Dose distributions were first calculated following the Paris System and then electively optimized for the target volume by changing source positions and dwell times. RESULTS: Compared to clinical estimations, the radiological determination of the tumor bed's location revealed an overall potential of topographic errors of 51.8% (14 out of 27 patients), rising up to 78.5% in patients with large adipose breasts (11 out of 13 patients). This observation was due to a high mobility of the tissue, leading to varying tumor site projections at the time of mammography, surgery, and brachytherapy. In all patients, the presimulation of the implant resulted in an adequate coverage of the target volume. In 17 of the 27 treated patients, dose distributions were modified to achieve a higher dose delivery in zones where a higher residual tumor load was expected (boost-in-boost). CONCLUSION: Breast implants have a high potential of geographic misses that can be avoided by intraoperative clip demarcation. The delineation of the tumor bed allows for dose reports actually referring to the target volume and not to the implant system to be obtained. In addition, modern afterloading techniques offer possibilities of individual dose planning with regard to high risk subvolumes within the implanted tissue.
PURPOSE: An applicator is described for endocavitary treatment of rectal cancers using a high dose rate (HDR) remote afterloading system with a single high-intensity 192Ir source as an alternative to the 50 kVp x-ray therapy contact unit most frequently used in this application. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The applicator consists of a tungsten-alloy collimator with a 45 degree beveled end, placed in a protoscope with an elliptical cross-section. The resultant 3 cm diameter circular treatment aperture, located in the beveled face of the proctoscope, is irradiated by circular array of dwell positions located about 6.5 mm from the applicator surface. This beveled end allows patients with posterior wall tumors to be treated in the dorsal lithotomy position. The dose-rate distributions about the applicator were determined using a combination of thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD-100 detectors) and radiochromic film dose measurement techniques along with Monte Carlo dosimetry calculations. TLD-100 (3 x 3 x 0.9 mm3 chips) measurements were used to measure the distribution of dose over the proctoscope surface as well as the central axis dose-rate distribution. Relative radiochromic film measurements were used to measure off-axis ratios (flatness and penumbra width) within the treatment aperture. These data were combined with Monte Carlo simulation results to obtain the final dose distribution. RESULTS: The tungsten collimator successfully limits the dose to the tissue in contact with the proctoscope walls to less than 12% of the prescribed dose. These results indicate that the HDR applicator system has slightly more penetrating depth-dose characteristics than the most widely used contact therapy x-ray machine. Flatness characteristics of the two treatment delivery systems are comparable, although the HDR endocavitary applicator has a significantly wider penumbra. Finally, the HDR applicator has a lower surface dose rate (1.5-4 Gy/min of dwell time) compared to 9-10 Gy/min for the x-ray unit. CONCLUSIONS: An applicator system has been developed for endocavitary treatment of early stage rectal carcinoma that uses a single-stepping source HDR remote afterloading system as a radiation source. The advantages of the HDR-based system over x-ray therapy contact units currently used in this clinical application are (a) enhanced flexibility in applicator design and (b) widespread availability of single-stepping source HDR remote afterloading systems.