| Literature DB >> 21892943 |
Lutz Lüdemann1, Christian Wybranski, Max Seidensticker, Konrad Mohnike, Siegfried Kropf, Peter Wust, Jens Ricke.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess brachytherapy catheter positioning accuracy and to evaluate the effects of prolonged irradiation time on the tolerance dose of normal liver parenchyma following single-fraction irradiation with 192Ir.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21892943 PMCID: PMC3179944 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-6-107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Figure 1Geometry. The 3D visualization shows a CT slice with the calculated dose in Gy overlayed. The dose is applied using two catheters. The two catheters were visualized in 3D using surface rendering of the catheters labeled in the CT scan.
Figure 2Image registration. A) T2-w image coregistered with the planning CT. Note that only the liver was coregistered and therefore good matching of the images was only achieved for the liver. B) T2-w image showing segmented lesion and isodoses at 12-week follow-up. A prononounced shift of the irradiation effect with respect to the planned dose distribution as shown in this example was typically not found.
Figure 3Mismatch areas. T2-w image showing segmented irradiation effect and 16.2Gy isodose encompassing the corresponding tolerance dose volume. A very pronounced shift of the irradiation effect with respect to the isodoses is shown to illus-trate the likely maximum inaccuracy of catheter positioning. Mismatch areas in which we observed a dose response at doses smaller than the tolerance dose of the total irradiation effect are indexed with "MA+" and mismatch areas in which we did not observe a dose response at doses higher than the tolerance dose of the total irradiation effect are indexed with "MA- ".
Figure 4Dose separation. The 3D visualization shows a coronal CT reconstruction with the calculated dose in Gy overlayed using the patient in Fig. 1. The dose is applied using two catheters. The two catheters were visualized in 3D using surface rendering of the catheters labeled in the CT scan. A) Total dose, D, overlayed. B) Dose applied by the cranial catheter, D1. C) Dose applied by the caudal catheter, D2 .
Figure 5Catheter contribution index. The image showing the separated isodoses of two catheters for the patient in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4. The separated doses of the cranial and caudal catheter (Fig. 4) are used to calculate the catheter contribution index (Eq. 2) shown in color coding. In case of two equally contributing catheters, D/D= 0.5 and I= 2.0. Iis always in the range between 0 and 2.
Normal liver tissue tolerance dose and volume of irradiation effect
| 6w T1-w | 12w T1-w | 6w T2-w | 12w T2-w | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dose/Gy | 13.7 ± 4.8 | 16.7 ± 5.0 | 14.3 ± 6.2 | 16.6 ± 6.4 |
| Volume/cm3 | 190.3 ± 158.6 | 127.2 ± 118.8 | 190.0 ± 166.4 | 157.0 ± 143.5 |
Mean normal liver tissue tolerance dose and volume (± standard deviation) for interstitial edema assessed by hyperintensity on T2-w images and hepatocyte dysfunction assessed by hypointensity on T1-w images six/twelve weeks (6w and 12w) after HDR-BT (n: number of MRI examinations evaluated).
Shift between irradiation effect and planned dose distribution
| T1-w | T2-w | |
|---|---|---|
| Axial shift/mm | -5.3 ± 5.4 | -5.6 ± 6.0 |
| Orthogonal shift/mm | 4.0 ± 2.5 | 4.6 ± 2.6 |
| Total shift/mm | 7.7 ± 4.4 | 8.4 ± 4.4 |
| 1.14 ± 0.43 | 1.04 ± 0.49 | |
Mean axial, orthogonal, and total shift between center coordinates of the irradiation effect and planned dose distribution in relation to the direction vector of catheter implantation for T1-w and T2-w MRI data. Both follow-up dates, 6w and 12w, were evaluated together. A negative value of the axial shift indicates a shift into the direction of the catheter entry site. T1-w = hepatocyte dysfunction, T2-w = interstitial edema, n = number of MR examinations assessed.
Mean dose, deviation of mean dose from normal liver tissue tolerance dose, and dose protraction in mismatch areas
| 6W T1-w | 12W T1-w | 6W T2-w | 12W T2-w | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.0 ± 4.3 | 14.1 ± 4.4 | 11.8 ± 5.4 | 14.0 ± 6.3 | |
| 23.2 ± 11.9 | 28.5 ± 11.0 | 22.2 ± 11.6 | 27.7 ± 15.1 | |
| Δ | -2.1 ± 2.8 | -3.2 ± 1.9 | -2.1 ± 4.3 | -3.0 ± 3.1 |
| Δ | 9.1 ± 7.5 | 11.2 ± 6.8 | 8.3 ± 6.6 | 10.7 ± 8.8 |
| 1.67 ± 0.33 | 1.69 ± 0.26 | 1.67 ± 0.31 | 1.70 ± 0.27 | |
| 1.45 ± 0.39 | 1.35 ± 0.37 | 1.45 ± 0.37 | 1.39 ± 0.36 | |
| 0.17 ± 0.28 | 0.25 ± 0.27 | 0.16 ± 0.26 | 0.23 ± 0.22 | |
| 42.0 ± 26.7 | 38.2 ± 31.2 | 40.8 ± 29.2 | 43.0 ± 33.1 | |
| 21.8 ± 11.1 | 23.9 ± 7.8 | 23.1 ± 0.8 | 27.0 ± 9.0 | |
D(MA+), D(MA-): Average dose in mismatch areas; "MA+" for response at doses smaller than the tolerance dose and "MA-" for missing response at doses exceeding the tolerance dose.
ΔD(MA+), ΔD(MA-): Difference between the average dose in "MA+"and "MA-" and corresponding tolerance dose of the irradiation effect.
I(MA+), I(MA-): Catheter contribution index in "MA+" and "MA-".
AC: Asymmetry coefficient between the catheter contribution indices in "MA+" and "MA-".
V (MA +/MA-): Volume of the mismatch areas "MA+" and "MA-" in percent and absolute value which is per definition identical for both areas.
Errors are given as standard deviation.