PURPOSE: Although notched Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) plaques have been widely used, optic disc dose reduction by notched COMS plaques has not been discussed in the literature. Therefore, this study investigated optic disc dose reduction in ocular brachytherapy using 125 I notched COMS plaques in comparison with optic disc dose for 125 I standard COMS plaques. METHODS: For this simulation study, an in-house brachytherapy dose calculation program was developed using MATLAB software by incorporating the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-43 Update (AAPM TG-43U1) dosimetry formalism with a line source approximation in a homogeneous water medium and COMS seed coordinates in the AAPM TG 129. Using this program, optic disc doses for standard COMS plaques (from 12 to 22 mm in diameter in 2 mm increments) and notched COMS plaques with one seed removed (Case #1, from 12 to 22 mm) and with two seeds removed (Case #2, from 14 to 22 mm) were calculated as a function of tumor margin-to-optic disc distance (DT) for various tumor basal dimensions (BDs) for prescription depths from 1 to 10 mm in 1 mm intervals. A dose of 85 Gy for an irradiation time of 168 h was prescribed to each prescription depth. Then absolute and relative optic disc dose reduction by notched COMS plaques (Cases #1 and #2) was calculated for all prescription depths. RESULTS: Optic disc dose reduction by notched COMS plaques (Cases #1 and #2) had five unique trends related to maximum optic disc dose reduction and corresponding optimal DT for each BD in each plaque. It increased with increasing prescription depth. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in this study would enable the clinician to choose an adequate plaque type among standard and notched 125 I COMS plaques and a prescription depth to minimize optic disc dose.
PURPOSE: Although notched Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) plaques have been widely used, optic disc dose reduction by notched COMS plaques has not been discussed in the literature. Therefore, this study investigated optic disc dose reduction in ocular brachytherapy using 125 I notched COMS plaques in comparison with optic disc dose for 125 I standard COMS plaques. METHODS: For this simulation study, an in-house brachytherapy dose calculation program was developed using MATLAB software by incorporating the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-43 Update (AAPM TG-43U1) dosimetry formalism with a line source approximation in a homogeneous water medium and COMS seed coordinates in the AAPM TG 129. Using this program, optic disc doses for standard COMS plaques (from 12 to 22 mm in diameter in 2 mm increments) and notched COMS plaques with one seed removed (Case #1, from 12 to 22 mm) and with two seeds removed (Case #2, from 14 to 22 mm) were calculated as a function of tumor margin-to-optic disc distance (DT) for various tumor basal dimensions (BDs) for prescription depths from 1 to 10 mm in 1 mm intervals. A dose of 85 Gy for an irradiation time of 168 h was prescribed to each prescription depth. Then absolute and relative optic disc dose reduction by notched COMS plaques (Cases #1 and #2) was calculated for all prescription depths. RESULTS: Optic disc dose reduction by notched COMS plaques (Cases #1 and #2) had five unique trends related to maximum optic disc dose reduction and corresponding optimal DT for each BD in each plaque. It increased with increasing prescription depth. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in this study would enable the clinician to choose an adequate plaque type among standard and notched 125 I COMS plaques and a prescription depth to minimize optic disc dose.
Authors: Mark J Rivard; Bert M Coursey; Larry A DeWerd; William F Hanson; M Saiful Huq; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Michael G Mitch; Ravinder Nath; Jeffrey F Williamson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-03 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: Subir Nag; Jeanne M Quivey; John D Earle; David Followill; James Fontanesi; Paul T Finger Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mandeep S Sagoo; Carol L Shields; Jacqueline Emrich; Arman Mashayekhi; Lydia Komarnicky; Jerry A Shields Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.389