Literature DB >> 16193786

Dosimetric effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for 103Pd and 125I prostate implants.

Omar Chibani1, Jeffrey F Williamson, Dorin Todor.   

Abstract

A Monte Carlo study is carried out to quantify the effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for 103Pd and 125I prostate implants. Two idealized and two real prostate implants are considered. Full Monte Carlo simulation (FMCS) of implants (seeds are physically and simultaneously simulated) is compared with isotropic point-source dose-kernel superposition (PSKS) and line-source dose-kernel superposition (LSKS) methods. For clinical pre- and post-procedure implants, the dose to the different structures (prostate, rectum wall, and urethra) is calculated. The discretized volumes of these structures are reconstructed using transrectal ultrasound contours. Local dose differences (PSKS versus FMCS and LSKS versus FMCS) are investigated. The dose contributions from primary versus scattered photons are calculated separately. For 103Pd, the average absolute total dose difference between FMCS and PSKS can be as high as 7.4% for the idealized model and 6.1% for the clinical preprocedure implant. Similarly, the total dose difference is lower for the case of 125I: 4.4% for the idealized model and 4.6% for a clinical post-procedure implant. Average absolute dose differences between LSKS and FMCS are less significant for both seed models: 3 to 3.6% for the idealized models and 2.9 to 3.2% for the clinical plans. Dose differences between PSKS and FMCS are due to the absence of both seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation modeling in the PSKS approach. LSKS accounts for seed anisotropy but not for the interseed effect, leading to systematically overestimated dose values in comparison with the more accurate FMCS method. For both idealized and clinical implants the dose from scattered photons represent less than 1/3 of the total dose. For all studied cases, LSKS prostate DVHs overestimate D90 by 2 to 5% because of the missing interseed attenuation effect. PSKS and LSKS predictions of V150 and V200 are overestimated by up to 9% in comparison with the FMCS results. Finally, effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation must be viewed in the context of other significant sources of dose uncertainty, namely seed orientation, source misplacement, prostate morphological changes and tissue heterogeneity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16193786     DOI: 10.1118/1.1897466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  7 in total

1.  Reconstruction of brachytherapy seed positions and orientations from cone-beam CT x-ray projections via a novel iterative forward projection matching method.

Authors:  Damodar Pokhrel; Martin J Murphy; Dorin A Todor; Elisabeth Weiss; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Dosimetric effect of tissue heterogeneity for (125)I prostate implants.

Authors:  Susana Maria Oliveira; Nuno José Teixeira; Lisete Fernandes; Pedro Teles; Pedro Vaz
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2014-04-16

3.  Fast patient-specific Monte Carlo brachytherapy dose calculations via the correlated sampling variance reduction technique.

Authors:  Andrew Sampson; Yi Le; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Experimental implementation of a polyenergetic statistical reconstruction algorithm for a commercial fan-beam CT scanner.

Authors:  Joshua D Evans; Bruce R Whiting; David G Politte; Joseph A O'Sullivan; Paul F Klahr; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 2.685

5.  An analytical model to determine interseed attenuation effect in low-dose-rate brachytherapy.

Authors:  Habib Safigholi; Dariush Sardari; Somaye Karimi Jashni; Seied Rabi Mahdavi; Ali S Meigooni
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 6.  A brief look at model-based dose calculation principles, practicalities, and promise.

Authors:  Ron S Sloboda; Hali Morrison; Brie Cawston-Grant; Geetha V Menon
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2017-02-08

Review 7.  Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM.

Authors:  Christian Kirisits; Mark J Rivard; Dimos Baltas; Facundo Ballester; Marisol De Brabandere; Rob van der Laarse; Yury Niatsetski; Panagiotis Papagiannis; Taran Paulsen Hellebust; Jose Perez-Calatayud; Kari Tanderup; Jack L M Venselaar; Frank-André Siebert
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2013-11-30       Impact factor: 6.280

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.