Evaluation of Dosimetric Effect and Treatment Time by Plan Parameters for Endobronchial Brachytherapy

Chang Heon Choi; Jong Min Park; So-Yeon Park; SungHee Kang; Jin Dong Cho; Jung-in Kim

doi:10.14316/pmp.2017.28.2.39

Journal List > Prog Med Phys > v.28(2) > 1098587

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi, Park, Park, Kang, Cho, and Kim: Evaluation of Dosimetric Effect and Treatment Time by Plan Parameters for Endobronchial Brachytherapy

Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2017;28(2):39-44.

Published online: 17 June 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2017.28.2.39

Evaluation of Dosimetric Effect and Treatment Time by Plan Parameters for Endobronchial Brachytherapy

Chang Heon Choi^∗,^†,^‡,^§, Jong Min Park^∗,^†,^‡,^§, So-Yeon Park^∗,^†,^‡,^§, SungHee Kang^∗,^†,^‡, Jin Dong Cho^∗,^†, Jung-in Kim^∗,^†,^‡,

^∗Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

^†Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea

^‡Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

^§Center for Convergence Research on Robotics, Advance Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon, Korea

Corresponding author Jung-in Kim (madangin@gmail.com) Tel: 82-2-2072-3573 Fax: 82-2-765-3317

Received 12 June 201729 June 2017 Accepted 30 June 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study aims to analyze dose distribution and treatment time of endobronchial brachytherapy (EBBT) by changing the position step size of the dwell position. A solid water phantom and an intraluminal catheter were used in the treatment plan. The treatment plans were generated for 3, 5, 7, and 10 cm treatment lengths, respectively. For each treatment length, the source position step sizes were set as 2.5, 5, and 10 mm. Three reference points were set 1 cm away from the central axis of the catheter, along the axis, for uniform dose distribution. Volumetric dose distribution was calculated to evaluate the dosimetric effect. The total radiation delivery time and total dwell time were estimated for treatment efficiency, which were increased with position step sizes. At half-life time, the differences between the position step sizes in the total radiation delivery time were 18.1, 15.4, 18.0, and 24.0 s for 3, 5, 7, and 10 cm treatment lengths, respectively. The dose distributions were more homogenous by increasing the position step sizes. The dose difference of the reference point was less than 10%. In brachytherapy, this difference can be negligible. For EBBT, the treatment time is the key factor while considering the patient status. To reduce the total treatment time, EBBT can be performed with 2.5 mm position step size.

Keywords: Endobronchial, Brachytherapy, Treatment planning, Position step size

REFERENCES

1. Donovan E, Timotin E, Farrell T, Donde B, Puksa S, Sur R. Endobronchial brachytherapy for metastasis from extrapulmonary malignancies as an effective treatment for palliation of symptoms. Brachytherapy. 2017; 16:630–8.

2. Nag S, Abitbol AA, Anderson LL, Blasko JC, Flores A, Harrison LB, et al. Consensus guidelines for high dose rate remote brachytherapy in cervical, endometrial, and endobronchial tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993; 27:1241–4.

3. Bedwinek J, Petty A, Bruton C, Sofield J, Lee L. The use of high dose rate endobronchial brachytherapy to palliate symptomatic endobronchial recurrence of previously irradiated bronchogenic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992; 22:23–30.

4. Kelly JF, Delclos ME, Morice RC, Huaringa A, Allen PK, Komaki R. High-dose-rate endobronchial brachytherapy effectively palliates symptoms due to airway tumors: the 10-year MD Anderson cancer center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 48:697–702.

5. Perol M, Caliandro R, Pommier P, Malet C, Montbarbon X, Carrie C, et al. Curative irradiation of limited endobronchial carcinomas with high-dose rate brachytherapy: results of a pilot study. Chest. 1997; 111:1417–23.

6. Taulelle M, Chauvet B, Vincent P, Felix-Faure C, Buciarelli B, Garcia R, et al. High dose rate endobronchial brachy–therapy: results and complications in 189 patients. Eur Respir J. 1998; 11:162–8.

7. Mendiondo OA, Dillon M, Beach LJ. Endobronchial brac–hytherapy in the treatment of recurrent bronchogenic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983; 9:579–82.

8. Huber RM, Fischer R, Haŭtmann H, Pöllinger R, Wendt T, Müller-Wening D, et al. Palliative endobronchial brachytherapy for central lung tumors: a prospective, randomized comparison of two fractionation schedules. Chest. 1995; 107:463–70.

9. Hennequin C, Tredaniel J, Chevret S, Durdux C, Dray M, Manoux D, et al. Predictive factors for late toxicity after endobronchial brachytherapy: a multivariate analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 42:21–7.

10. Langendijk H, de Jong J, Tjwa M, Muller M, ten Velde G, Aaronson N, et al. External irradiation versus external irradiation plus endobronchial brachytherapy in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized study. Radiother Oncol. 2001; 58:257–68.

11. Murakami N, Kobayashi K, Nakamura S, Wakita A, Okamoto H, Tsuchida K, et al. A total EQD2 greater than 85 Gy for trachea and main bronchus D2cc being associated with severe late complications after definitive endobronchial brachytherapy. Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy. 2016; 8:164.

12. Moon SY, Jeong E, Lim YK, Chung WK, Huh HD, Kim DW, et al. Feasibility Study of Source Position Verification in HDR Brachytherapy Using Scintillating Fiber. Prog Med Phys. 2016; 27:213–9.

13. Delclos ME, Komaki R, Morice RC, Allen PK, Davis M, Garden A. Endobronchial brachytherapy with high-dose-rate remote afterloading for recurrent endobronchial lesions. Radiology. 1996; 201:279–82.

14. Gustafson G, Vicini F, Freedman L, Johnston E, Edmundson G, Sherman S, et al. High dose rate endobronchial bra–chytherapy in the management of primary and recurrent bronchogenic malignancies. Cancer. 1995; 75:2345–50.

15. Hosni A, Bezjak A, Rink A, Czarnecka K, McPartlin A, Patterson S, et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy as a Treatment Option in Endobronchial Tumors. Lung Cancer Int. 2016; 2016:3086148.

16. Rogus RD, Smith MJ, Kubo HD. An equation to QA check the total treatment time for single-catheter HDR brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 40:245–8.

17. Wong T, Wallace S, Fernando W, Schumer W, Quong G. Dose errors in the near field of an HDR brachytherapy stepping source. Phys Med Biol. 1999; 44:357.

18. Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G, Weaver KA, Williamson JF, Meigooni AS. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. Med Phys. 1995; 22:209–34.

19. Fonseca GP, Viana RS, Podesta M, Rubo RA, Sales CP, Reniers B, et al. HDR 192Ir source speed measurements using a high speed video camera. Med Phys. 2015; 42:412–5.

20. Minamisawa R, Rubo R, Seraide R, Rocha J, Almeida A. Direct measurement of instantaneous source speed for a HDR brachytherapy unit using an optical fiber based detector. Med Phys. 2010; 37:5407–11.

Fig. 1.

Dose distribution in coronal view for each position step size and treatment length. (a-1): Position step size=2.5 mm, treatment length=3 cm; (a-2): position step size=5 mm, treatment length=3 cm; (a-3): position step size=10 mm, treatment length=3 cm; (b-1): position step size=2.5 mm, treatment length=5 cm; (b-2): position step size=5 mm, treatment length=5 cm; (b-3): position step size=10 mm, treatment length=5 cm; (c1): position step size=2.5 mm, treatment length=7 cm; (c-2): position step size=5 mm, treatment length=7 cm; (c-3): position step size=10 mm, treatment length=7 cm; (d-1): position step size=2.5 mm, treatment length=10 cm; (d-2): position step size=5 mm, treatment length=10 cm; (d-3): position step size=10 mm, treatment length=10 cm.

Table 1.

Dwell time and the number of active positions for various treatment lengths and position steps.

Treatment length (cm)	Source position step (mm)	Total dwell time (sec)			Dwell time per	Number of active
Treatment length (cm)	Source position step (mm)	Planning	Calibration	Half life	position (s)	positions
3	2.5	118.3	75.9	151.8	9.1	13
	5	123.9	79.5	159.0	17.7	7
	10	133.2	85.5	171.0	33.3	4
5	2.5	172.2	110.5	221.1	8.2	21
	5	176	112.9	225.9	16.0	11
	10	184.8	118.6	237.2	30.8	6
7	2.5	226.2	145.2	290.4	7.8	29
	5	231	148.2	296.5	15.4	15
	10	238.4	153.0	306.1	29.8	8
10	2.5	311.6	200.0	400.0	7.6	41
	5	315	202.2	404.4	15.0	21
	10	319	204.7	409.5	29.0	11

Table 2.

Radiation delivery time and secondary time recoded on the treatment control system for various treatment lengths and positiosteps.

Treatment length (cm)	Source position step (mm)	Radiation time (s)			Secondary
Treatment length (cm)	Source position step (mm)	Planning	Calibration	Half life	time (s)
3	2.5	120.9	77.6	155.2	131.4
	5	126.0	80.9	161.8	136.4
	10	135.0	86.7	173.3	141.6
5	2.5	176.4	113.2	226.5	186.8
	5	179.3	115.1	230.2	189.7
	10	188.4	121.0	241.9	198.8
7	2.5	229.2	147.1	294.3	239.4
	5	235.5	151.2	302.4	245.8
	10	243.2	156.1	312.3	253.5
10	2.5	315.8	202.7	405.5	326
	5	324.1	208.1	416.1	331.6
	10	334.5	214.7	429.5	334.8

Table 3.

Doses at three reference points for various treatment lengths and position steps.

Treatment length (cm)	Source position step (mm)	Reference point dose
Treatment length (cm)	Source position step (mm)	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3
3	2.5	98.91	102.15	98.93
	5	99.11	101.76	99.13
	10	99.72	100.54	99.74
5	2.5	96.49	106.95	96.56
	5	97.02	105.88	97.09
	10	98.15	103.62	98.22
7	2.5	95.14	109.61	95.25
	5	95.81	108.28	95.91
	10	97.16	105.58	97.26
10	2.5	94.06	111.73	94.21
	5	94.80	110.25	94.94
	10	96.02	107.83	96.15

TOOLS

Similar articles