Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:42:40.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of exit skin dose for intra-cavitary brachytherapy treatments by the BEBIG 60Co machine using thermoluminescent dosimeters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2020

Mina Marvi ,
Somayeh Gholami Open the ORCID record for Somayeh Gholami [Opens in a new window] ,
Mehdi Salehi Barough ,
Mojtaba Hosseini ,
Mansooreh Nabavi ,
Ramin Jaberi  and
Alireza Mohammadkarim
Mina Marvi
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Radiation Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Somayeh Gholami*
Affiliation:
Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Mehdi Salehi Barough
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Radiation Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Mojtaba Hosseini
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Radiation Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Mansooreh Nabavi
Affiliation:
Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Ramin Jaberi
Affiliation:
Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Alireza Mohammadkarim
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Somayeh Gholami, Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aims to evaluate the application of the exit skin dose (ESD) in verifying the accuracy of intra-cavitary brachytherapy treatments performed by the BEBIG 60Co machine using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs).

Materials and methods:

Eleven patients who were treated for gynaecological (GYN) malignancy by high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy machine have been considered in this study. A combination of tandem, cylinder and interstitial needles was applied for eight patients while tandem ovoid (TO) applicators were used for the rest (three patients). In order to measure ESD, thermoluminescent dosimetry was performed for each patient. TLDs were placed precisely on the patient’s skin along her symphysis pubis bone (anterior) and left (L)/right (R) sides of her pelvic. Positioning of the dosimeter was accurately determined using fiducial markers in computed tomography (CT) scan imaging, prior to the treatment. Finally, a comparison was made between the calculated dose from the treatment planning system (TPS) and the dose measured by TLDs.

Results:

About 90% of all cases showed a good agreement (while considering TLD uncertainty ∼5·5%) between TPS dose calculations and TLD measurements. The measured mean values of ESD received to anterior, left and right positions were 56·72, 12·18 and 12·82 cGy, respectively. For three patients, differences up to 11·9% were detected.

Conclusion:

To conclude, ESD measurement method can be a suitable practical approach for verifying the accuracy of GYN HDR treatment delivery.

Keywords

BEBIG 60Co machineintra-cavitary brachytherapyTLD dosimetry
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 49 - 54
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chittenden, B, Fullerton, G, Maheshwari, A, Bhattacharya, S. Polycystic ovary syndrome and the risk of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19 (3): 398–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sankaranarayanan, R, Ferlay, J. Worldwide burden of gynaecological cancer: the size of the problem. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20 (2): 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieck, G, Fiander, A. The effect of lifestyle factors on gynaecological cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20 (2): 227–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allahverdi, M, Sarkhosh, M, Aghili, M, Jaberi, R, Adelnia, A, Geraily, G. Evaluation of treatment planning system of brachytherapy according to dose to the rectum delivered. Radiat Prot Dosim 2011; 150 (3): 312–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gholami, S, Mirzaei, HR, Arfaee, AJ et al. Dose distribution verification for GYN brachytherapy using EBT Gafchromic film and TG-43 calculation. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2016; 21 (5): 480–486.10.1016/j.rpor.2016.06.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sahoo, S, Selvam, TP, Vishwakarma, R, Chourasiya, G. Monte Carlo modeling of 60Co HDR brachytherapy source in water and in different solid water phantom materials. J Med Phys Assoc Med Physicists India 2010; 35 (1): 15–22.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulos, G, Baltas, D, Geretschlaeger, A et al. In vivo thermoluminescence dosimetry dose verification of transperineal 192Ir high-dose-rate brachytherapy using CT-based planning for the treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57 (4): 1183–1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reniers, B, Landry, G, Eichner, R, Hallil, A, Verhaegen, F. In vivo dosimetry for gynaecological brachytherapy using a novel position sensitive radiation detector: feasibility study. Med Phys 2012; 39 (4): 1925–1935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raffi, JA, Davis, SD, Hammer, CG et al. Determination of exit skin dose for intracavitary accelerated partial breast irradiation with thermoluminescent dosimeters. Med Phys 2010; 37 (6 Part 1): 2693–2702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldhäusl, C, Wambersie, A, Pötter, R, Georg, D. In-vivo dosimetry for gynaecological brachytherapy: physical and clinical considerations. Radiother Oncol 2005; 77 (3): 310–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haughey, A, Coalter, G, Mugabe, K. Evaluation of linear array MOSFET detectors for in vivo dosimetry to measure rectal dose in HDR brachytherapy. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2011; 34 (3): 361–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kertzscher, G, Rosenfeld, A, Beddar, S, Tanderup, K, Cygler, J. In vivo dosimetry: trends and prospects for brachytherapy. British J Radiol 2014; 87 (1041): 20140206–20140222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosleh-Shirazi, MA, Shahcheraghi-Motlagh, E, Gholami, MH, Shakibafard, A, Karbasi, S, Fardid, R. Influence of dwell time homogeneity error weight parameter on treatment plan quality in inverse optimized high-dose-rate cervix brachytherapy using SagiPlan. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2019; 11 (3): 256–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nomden, CN, de Leeuw, AA, Moerland, MA, Roesink, JM, Tersteeg, RJ, Jürgenliemk-Schulz, IM. Clinical use of the Utrecht applicator for combined intracavitary/interstitial brachytherapy treatment in locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (4): 1424–1430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haie-Meder, C, Pötter, R, Van Limbergen, E et al. Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 2005; 74 (3): 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivard, MJ, Coursey, BM, DeWerd, LA et al. Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: a revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys 2004; 31 (3): 633–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banaee, N, Nedaie, H. Evaluating the effect of energy on calibration of thermo-luminescent dosimeters 7-LiF: Mg, Cu, P (GR-207A). Iranian J Radiat Res 2013; 11 (1): 51–54.Google Scholar
Kirov, AS, Williamson, JF, Meigooni, A, Zhu, Y. TLD, diode and Monte Carlo dosimetry of an 192Ir source for high dose-rate brachytherapy. Phys Med Biol 1995; 40 (12): 2015–2036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, A, Bradley, D, Nisbet, A. Physics-aspects of dose accuracy in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy: source dosimetry, treatment planning, equipment performance and in vivo verification techniques. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2012; 4 (2): 81–91.10.5114/jcb.2012.29364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asnaashari, K, Gholami, S, Khosravi, H. Lessons learnt from errors in radiotherapy centers. Iranian J Radiat Res 2014; 12 (4): 361–367.Google Scholar
Hellebust, TP, Kirisits, C, Berger, D et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group: considerations and pitfalls in commissioning and applicator reconstruction in 3D image-based treatment planning of cervix cancer brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2010; 96 (2): 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigsby, PW, Georgiou, A, Jeffrey, F, Perez, CA. Anatomic variation of gynecologic brachytherapy prescription points. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 27 (3): 725–729.10.1016/0360-3016(93)90402-HCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrew, M, Kim, Y, Ginader, T, Smith, BJ, Sun, W, Wang, D. Reduction of applicator displacement in MR/CT-guided cervical cancer HDR brachytherapy by the use of patient hover transport system. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10 (1): 85–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed