OBJECTIVE: To compare high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy systems with (192)Ir, (60)Co and electronic brachytherapy source (EBS) for treatment of endometrial cancers. METHODS: Two additional plans were generated per patient fraction using a (60)Co source and Xoft-EBS on 10 selected patients, previously treated with a vaginal cylinder applicator using a (192)Ir source. Dose coverage of "PTV_CYLD", a 5-mm shell surrounding the cylinder, was evaluated. Doses to the following organs at risk (OARs) the rectum, bladder and sigmoid were evaluated in terms of V35% and V50%, the percentage volume receiving 35% and 50% of the prescription dose, respectively, and D2cm(3), the highest dose to a 2-cm(3) volume of an OAR. RESULTS: Xoft-EBS reduces doses to all OARs in the lower dose range, but it does not always provide better sparing of the rectum in higher dose range as does evaluation using D2cm3. V150% and V200% for PTV_CYLD was up to four times greater for Xoft-EBS plans than for plans generated with (192)Ir or (60)Co. Surface mucosal (vaginal cylinder surface) doses were also 23% higher for Xoft-EBS than for (192)Ir or (60)Co plans. CONCLUSION: Xoft-EBS is a suitable HDR source for vaginal applicator treatment with advantages of reducing radiation exposure to OARs in the lower dose range, while simultaneously increasing the vaginal mucosal dose. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This work presents newer knowledge in dosimetric comparison between (192)Ir or (60)Co and Xoft-EBS sources for endometrial vaginal cylinder HDR planning.
OBJECTIVE: To compare high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy systems with (192)Ir, (60)Co and electronic brachytherapy source (EBS) for treatment of endometrial cancers. METHODS: Two additional plans were generated per patient fraction using a (60)Co source and Xoft-EBS on 10 selected patients, previously treated with a vaginal cylinder applicator using a (192)Ir source. Dose coverage of "PTV_CYLD", a 5-mm shell surrounding the cylinder, was evaluated. Doses to the following organs at risk (OARs) the rectum, bladder and sigmoid were evaluated in terms of V35% and V50%, the percentage volume receiving 35% and 50% of the prescription dose, respectively, and D2cm(3), the highest dose to a 2-cm(3) volume of an OAR. RESULTS:Xoft-EBS reduces doses to all OARs in the lower dose range, but it does not always provide better sparing of the rectum in higher dose range as does evaluation using D2cm3. V150% and V200% for PTV_CYLD was up to four times greater for Xoft-EBS plans than for plans generated with (192)Ir or (60)Co. Surface mucosal (vaginal cylinder surface) doses were also 23% higher for Xoft-EBS than for (192)Ir or (60)Co plans. CONCLUSION:Xoft-EBS is a suitable HDR source for vaginal applicator treatment with advantages of reducing radiation exposure to OARs in the lower dose range, while simultaneously increasing the vaginal mucosal dose. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This work presents newer knowledge in dosimetric comparison between (192)Ir or (60)Co and Xoft-EBS sources for endometrial vaginal cylinder HDR planning.
Authors: Richard Pötter; Christine Haie-Meder; Erik Van Limbergen; Isabelle Barillot; Marisol De Brabandere; Johannes Dimopoulos; Isabelle Dumas; Beth Erickson; Stefan Lang; An Nulens; Peter Petrow; Jason Rownd; Christian Kirisits Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Paul N Mobit; Priyadarshini Rajaguru; Michael Brewer; Michael Baird; Satyaseelan Packianathan; Claus Chunli Yang Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: William Small; Sushil Beriwal; D Jeffrey Demanes; Kathryn E Dusenbery; Patricia Eifel; Beth Erickson; Ellen Jones; Jason J Rownd; Jennifer F De Los Santos; Akila N Viswanathan; David Gaffney Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Mitchell Kamrava; Melody P Chung; John Demarco; Oluwatosin Kayode; Sang-June Park; Lalaine Borja; Lucy Chow; Steve P Lee; Michael L Steinberg; D Jeffrey Demanes Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: R A Nout; V T H B M Smit; H Putter; I M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; J J Jobsen; L C H W Lutgens; E M van der Steen-Banasik; J W M Mens; A Slot; M C Stenfert Kroese; B N F M van Bunningen; A C Ansink; W L J van Putten; C L Creutzberg Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William C Dooley; John P Thropay; Gary J Schreiber; Mohamed Y Puthawala; Steven C Lane; James C Wurzer; Charles E Stewart; Gordon L Grado; Harish G Ahuja; Gary M Proulx Journal: Onco Targets Ther Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Adam Dickler; Michael C Kirk; Alan Coon; Damian Bernard; Tom Zusag; Jacob Rotmensch; David E Wazer Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jose Antonio Domínguez Rullán; María Teresa Muñoz Miguelañez; Rafael Colmenares Fernández; Miguel Cámara Gallego; Mercedes Martín Sánchez; Feliciano García Vicente; Sonsoles Sancho García Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2022-05-10