Jacqueline Esthappan Zoberi1, Jose Garcia-Ramirez2, Samantha Hedrick3, Vivian Rodriguez2, Carol G Bertelsman4, Stacie Mackey4, Yanle Hu5, H Michael Gach6, P Kumar Rao7, Perry W Grigsby2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO. Electronic address: jzoberi@radonc.wustl.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO. 3. Provision Center for Proton Therapy, Knoxville, TN. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Saint Louis, MO. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO; Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO. 7. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Episcleral plaque brachytherapy (EPB) planning is conventionally based on approximations of the implant geometry with no volumetric imaging following plaque implantation. We have developed an MRI-based technique for EPB treatment planning and dose delivery verification based on the actual patient-specific geometry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MR images of 6 patients, prescribed 85 Gy over 96 hours from Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study-based EPB, were acquired before and after implantation. Preimplant and postimplant scans were used to generate "preplans" and "postplans", respectively. In the preplans, a digital plaque model was positioned relative to the tumor, sclera, and nerve. In the postplans, the same plaque model was positioned based on the imaged plaque. Plaque position, point doses, percentage of tumor volume receiving 85 Gy (V100), and dose to 100% of tumor volume (Dmin) were compared between preplans and postplans. All isodose plans were computed using TG-43 formalism with no heterogeneity corrections. RESULTS: Shifts and tilts of the plaque ranged from 1.4 to 8.6 mm and 1.0 to 3.8 mm, respectively. V100 was ≥97% for 4 patients. Dmin for preplans and postplans ranged from 83 to 118 Gy and 45 to 110 Gy, respectively. Point doses for tumor apex and base were all found to decrease from the preimplant to the postimplant plan, with mean differences of 16.7 ± 8.6% and 30.5 ± 11.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By implementing MRI for EPB, we eliminate reliance on approximations of the eye and tumor shape and the assumption of idealized plaque placement. With MRI, one can perform preimplant as well as postimplant imaging, facilitating EPB treatment planning based on the actual patient-specific geometry and dose-delivery verification based on the imaged plaque position.
PURPOSE: Episcleral plaque brachytherapy (EPB) planning is conventionally based on approximations of the implant geometry with no volumetric imaging following plaque implantation. We have developed an MRI-based technique for EPB treatment planning and dose delivery verification based on the actual patient-specific geometry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MR images of 6 patients, prescribed 85 Gy over 96 hours from Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study-based EPB, were acquired before and after implantation. Preimplant and postimplant scans were used to generate "preplans" and "postplans", respectively. In the preplans, a digital plaque model was positioned relative to the tumor, sclera, and nerve. In the postplans, the same plaque model was positioned based on the imaged plaque. Plaque position, point doses, percentage of tumor volume receiving 85 Gy (V100), and dose to 100% of tumor volume (Dmin) were compared between preplans and postplans. All isodose plans were computed using TG-43 formalism with no heterogeneity corrections. RESULTS: Shifts and tilts of the plaque ranged from 1.4 to 8.6 mm and 1.0 to 3.8 mm, respectively. V100 was ≥97% for 4 patients. Dmin for preplans and postplans ranged from 83 to 118 Gy and 45 to 110 Gy, respectively. Point doses for tumor apex and base were all found to decrease from the preimplant to the postimplant plan, with mean differences of 16.7 ± 8.6% and 30.5 ± 11.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By implementing MRI for EPB, we eliminate reliance on approximations of the eye and tumor shape and the assumption of idealized plaque placement. With MRI, one can perform preimplant as well as postimplant imaging, facilitating EPB treatment planning based on the actual patient-specific geometry and dose-delivery verification based on the imaged plaque position.
Authors: Nolan L Gagne; Kara L Leonard; Kathryn E Huber; John E Mignano; Jay S Duker; Nora V Laver; Mark J Rivard Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Taran Paulsen Hellebust; Christian Kirisits; Daniel Berger; José Pérez-Calatayud; Marisol De Brabandere; Astrid De Leeuw; Isabelle Dumas; Robert Hudej; Gerry Lowe; Rachel Wills; Kari Tanderup Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mark J Rivard; Christopher S Melhus; Domingo Granero; Jose Perez-Calatayud; Facundo Ballester Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mark J Rivard; Sou-Tung Chiu-Tsao; Paul T Finger; Ali S Meigooni; Christopher S Melhus; Firas Mourtada; Mary E Napolitano; D W O Rogers; Rowan M Thomson; Ravinder Nath Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Sou-Tung Chiu-Tsao; Melvin A Astrahan; Paul T Finger; David S Followill; Ali S Meigooni; Christopher S Melhus; Firas Mourtada; Mary E Napolitano; Ravinder Nath; Mark J Rivard; D W O Rogers; Rowan M Thomson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Christina Binder; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Amy C Schefler; Michael I Seider; Richard Crilly; Arthur Hung; Sheridan Meltsner; Yvonne Mowery; David G Kirsch; Bin S Teh; Richard L S Jennelle; Matthew T Studenski; Wu Liu; Choonik Lee; James A Hayman; Brian Kastner; Michael Hadsell; Alison H Skalet Journal: Ocul Oncol Pathol Date: 2019-12-11
Authors: H Michael Gach; Stacie L Mackey; Sana Rehman; Mo Kadbi; Jacqueline E Zoberi; Jose Garcia-Ramirez; Perry W Grigsby Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2017-10-30