Online first
Research paper
Published online: 2024-06-03

open access

Page views 22
Article views/downloads 18
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Effect of model-based dose-calculation algorithms in high dose rate brachytherapy of cervical carcinoma

Shraddha Srivastava1, Ajay Kannathuparambil Venugopal2, Moirangthem Nara Singh3

Abstract

Background: Task Group 43 (TG-43) formalism does not consider the tissue and applicator heterogeneities. This study is to compare the effect of model-based dose calculation algorithms, like Advanced Collapsed Cone Engine (ACE), on dose calculation with the TG-43 dose calculation formalism in patients with cervical carcinoma.

Materials and methods: 20 patients of cervical carcinoma treated with a high dose rate of intracavitary brachytherapy were prospectively studied. The target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured in the Oncentra treatment planning system (Elekta, Veenendaal, The Netherlands). All patients were planned with cobalt-60 (Co-60) and iridium-192 (Ir-192) sources with doses of 21 Gy in 3 fractions. These plans were calculated with TG-43 formalism and a model-based dose calculation algorithm ACE. The dosimetric parameters of TG-43 and ACE-based plans were compared in terms of target coverage and OAR doses.

Results: For Co-60-based plans, the percentage differences in the D90 and V100 values for high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) were 0.36 ± 0.43% and 0.17 ± 0.31%, respectively. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the percentage differences for D2cc volumes were –0.50 ± 0.51%, –0.16 ± 0.53% and –0.37 ± 1.21%, respectively. For Ir-192-based plans, the percentage difference in the D90 for HR-CTV was 0.54 ± 0.79%, while V100 was 0.24 ± 0.29%. For the bladder, rectum and sigmoid, the doses to 2cc volume were 0.35 ± 1.06%, 0.99 ± 0.74% and 0.74 ± 1.92%, respectively. No significant differences were found in the dosimetric parameters calculated with ACE and TG-43.

Conclusion: The ACE algorithm reduced doses to OARs and targets. However, ACE and TG-43 did not show significant differences in the dosimetric parameters of the target and OARs with both sources.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G, et al. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys. 1995; 22(2): 209–34.
  2. Beaulieu L, Carlsson Tedgren A, Carrier JF, et al. Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: current status and recommendations for clinical implementation. Med Phys. 2012; 39(10): 6208–6236.
  3. Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 1999; 44(11): R99–155.
  4. Ahnesjö A. Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 1989; 16(4): 577–592.
  5. Vassiliev ON, Wareing TA, McGhee J, et al. Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55(3): 581–598.
  6. Gifford KA, Horton JL, Wareing TA, et al. Comparison of a finite-element multigroup discrete-ordinates code with Monte Carlo for radiotherapy calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(9): 2253–2265.
  7. Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K, et al. GEANT4 - A simulation toolkit. Assoc Equip. 2003; 506(3): 250–303.
  8. Rogers DWO. Fifty years of Monte Carlo simulations for medical physics. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(13): R287–R301.
  9. Taylor REP, Yegin G, Rogers DWO. Benchmarking brachydose: Voxel based EGSnrc Monte Carlo calculations of TG-43 dosimetry parameters. Med Phys. 2007; 34(2): 445–457.
  10. Salvat F, Fern M, Sempau J. PENELOPE-2008: A Code System for Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport Workshop Proceedings Barcelona, Spain 30 June-3 July 2008. Nuclear Medicine Agency 2009.
  11. Van Ve, Ma Y, Beaulieu L. Whitepaper: ACE Advanced Collapsed Cone Engine. Netherlands Elekta Corp, Veenendal 2015.
  12. Jacob D, Lamberto M, DeSouza Lawrence L, et al. Clinical transition to model-based dose calculation algorithm: A retrospective analysis of high-dose-rate tandem and ring brachytherapy of the cervix. Brachytherapy. 2017; 16(3): 624–629.
  13. Abe K, Kadoya N, Sato S, et al. Impact of a commercially available model-based dose calculation algorithm on treatment planning of high-dose-rate brachytherapy in patients with cervical cancer. J Radiat Res. 2018; 59(2): 198–206.
  14. Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E, et al. Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol. 2005; 74(3): 235–245.
  15. Pötter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Li, et al. Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): Concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy - 3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiother Oncol. 2006; 78(1): 67–77.
  16. Viswanathan AN, Dimopoulos J, Kirisits C, et al. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-based contouring in cervical cancer brachytherapy: results of a prospective trial and preliminary guidelines for standardized contours. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 68(2): 491–498.
  17. Srivastava S, Singh N, Varghese M. Determination of variation in dosimetric parameters of treatment planning with Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate brachytherapy of cervical carcinoma. Radiat Phys Chem. 2022; 196: 110148.
  18. Mikell JK, Klopp AH, Gonzalez GMN, et al. Impact of heterogeneity-based dose calculation using a deterministic grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for intracavitary brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83(3): e417–e422.
  19. Hofbauer J, Kirisits C, Resch A, et al. Impact of heterogeneity-corrected dose calculation using a grid-based Boltzmann solver on breast and cervix cancer brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2016; 8(2): 143–149.
  20. Ma Y, Lacroix F, Lavallée MC, et al. Validation of the Oncentra Brachy Advanced Collapsed cone Engine for a commercial (192)Ir source using heterogeneous geometries. Brachytherapy. 2015; 14(6): 939–952.
  21. Thrower SL, Shaitelman SF, Bloom E, et al. Comparison of Dose Distributions With TG-43 and Collapsed Cone Convolution Algorithms Applied to Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Patient Plans. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2006; 95(5): 1520–1526.
  22. Zourari K, Major T, Herein A, et al. A retrospective dosimetric comparison of TG43 and a commercially available MBDCA for an APBI brachytherapy patient cohort. Phys Med. 2015; 31(7): 669–676.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy