| Literature DB >> 25679529 |
Débora M Trombetta1, Simone C Cardoso2, Victor G L Alves3, Alessandro Facure4, Delano V S Batista5, Ademir X da Silva6.
Abstract
The combination of radiotherapy treatments and breast reconstruction, using temporary tissue expanders, generates several concerns due to the presence of a magnetic valve inside the radiation field. The objective of this work is to evaluate a radiotherapy treatment planning for a patient using a tissue expander. Isodose curve maps, obtained using radiochromic films, were compared to the ones calculated with two different dose calculation algorithms of the Eclipse radiotherapy Treatment Planning System (TPS), considering the presence or absence of the heterogeneity. The TPS calculation considering the presence of the heterogeneity shows changes around 5% in the isodose curves when they were compared with the calculation without heterogeneity correction. This calculation did not take in account the real density value of the heterogeneity. This limitation was quantified to be around 10% in comparison with the TPS calculation and experimental measurements using the radiochromic film. These results show that the magnetic valve should be taken in account in dose calculations of the TPS. With respect to the AAA and Pencil Beam Convolution algorithms, when the calculation is compared with the real distribution, AAA presents a distribution more similar to experimental dose distribution.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25679529 PMCID: PMC4334510 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117548
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1CT image showing artifacts due to the presence of the magnetic disk.
Fig 2Radiochromic film positioned between Alderson Rando Phantom and agar breast phantom.
Results for density and dimensional stability tests for some breast phantoms.
| Author | Density | Dimensional Stability (T = 21°C) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durability | Height/Width | Weight | ||
| Weinstein et al [ | 1.25 g/cm3 | 0h | 5.0cm/5.0cm | 156g |
| 5h | 4.8cm/5.1cm | 154g | ||
| 10h | 4.6cm/5.2cm | 152g | ||
| 15h | 4.3cm/5.3cm | 150g | ||
| Morehouse et al [ | 1.10 g/cm3 | 0h | 5.0cm/5.0cm | 137g |
| 5h | 4.9cm/5.1cm | 136g | ||
| 10h | 4.7cm/5.1cm | 134g | ||
| 15h | 4.4cm/5.2cm | 132g | ||
| Dang et al [ | 1.03 g/cm3 | 0h | 5.0cm/5.0cm | 129g |
| 5h | 5.9cm/5.0cm | 129g | ||
| 10h | 4.9cm/5.0cm | 128g | ||
| 15h | 4.8cm/5.1cm | 128g | ||
|
| 1.06 g/cm3 | 0–15h | 5.0cm/5.0cm | 133g |
| 24h | 4.9cm/4.9cm | 133g | ||
| 48h | 4.9cm/4.9cm | 133g | ||
| 72h | 4.9cm/4.9cm | 133g | ||
Fig 3Maps of isodose curves calculated with and without correction for two different algorithms, PBC and AAA.
Fig 4Isodose crossplane calculated with (a) TPS and (b) measured with radiochromic film.
Fig 5Transverse dose profile comparing the TPS and the radiochromic film reading.
Fig 6Dose x Depth Monte Carlo Simulations, comparing the two densities; black squares for 7.4g/cm3 and red circles for 5.0g/cm3.