Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jul 1;83(3):e417-22.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.074. Epub 2012 Mar 19.

Impact of heterogeneity-based dose calculation using a deterministic grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for intracavitary brachytherapy

Justin K Mikell  1 , Ann H Klopp, Graciela M N Gonzalez, Kelly D Kisling, Michael J Price, Paula A Berner, Patricia J Eifel, Firas Mourtada
Affiliations

Impact of heterogeneity-based dose calculation using a deterministic grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for intracavitary brachytherapy

Justin K Mikell et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. .

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric impact of the heterogeneity dose calculation Acuros (Transpire Inc., Gig Harbor, WA), a grid-based Boltzmann equation solver (GBBS), for brachytherapy in a cohort of cervical cancer patients.

Methods and materials: The impact of heterogeneities was retrospectively assessed in treatment plans for 26 patients who had previously received (192)Ir intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer with computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance-compatible tandems and unshielded colpostats. The GBBS models sources, patient boundaries, applicators, and tissue heterogeneities. Multiple GBBS calculations were performed with and without solid model applicator, with and without overriding the patient contour to 1 g/cm(3) muscle, and with and without overriding contrast materials to muscle or 2.25 g/cm(3) bone. Impact of source and boundary modeling, applicator, tissue heterogeneities, and sensitivity of CT-to-material mapping of contrast were derived from the multiple calculations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 43 (TG-43) guidelines and the GBBS were compared for the following clinical dosimetric parameters: Manchester points A and B, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) report 38 rectal and bladder points, three and nine o'clock, and (D2cm3) to the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid.

Results: Points A and B, D(2) cm(3) bladder, ICRU bladder, and three and nine o'clock were within 5% of TG-43 for all GBBS calculations. The source and boundary and applicator account for most of the differences between the GBBS and TG-43 guidelines. The D(2cm3) rectum (n = 3), D(2cm3) sigmoid (n = 1), and ICRU rectum (n = 6) had differences of >5% from TG-43 for the worst case incorrect mapping of contrast to bone. Clinical dosimetric parameters were within 5% of TG-43 when rectal and balloon contrast were mapped to bone and radiopaque packing was not overridden.

Conclusions: The GBBS has minimal impact on clinical parameters for this cohort of patients with unshielded applicators. The incorrect mapping of rectal and balloon contrast does not have a significant impact on clinical parameters. Rectal parameters may be sensitive to the mapping of radiopaque packing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Spatial distributions of the 3 factors contributing to differences between GBBS and TG-43: source and boundary, applicator, and heterogeneity. The contrast is overridden to muscle, no override, or bone. (a) Top: contribution of source and boundary. Bottom: contribution of applicator. (b) Top row: combination of all three factors. Bottom row: contribution of the heterogeneity. From left to right, the GBBS with solid applicator with contrast overridden to muscle D(Y,N,M,M), contrast not overridden D(Y,N,N,N), or contrast overridden to bone D(Y,N,B,B).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Barplots showing contribution of factors to differences between the GBBS with solid applicator and no overrides D(Y,N,N,N) and TG-43. Summing source and boundary (red), applicator (green), and tissue heterogeneities (blue) yields the total percent difference (orange) from TG-43. (a) ICRU rectum (b) balloon center
Figure 2
Figure 2
Barplots showing contribution of factors to differences between the GBBS with solid applicator and no overrides D(Y,N,N,N) and TG-43. Summing source and boundary (red), applicator (green), and tissue heterogeneities (blue) yields the total percent difference (orange) from TG-43. (a) ICRU rectum (b) balloon center
Figure 3
Figure 3
Barplots showing different heterogeneity factors for different contrast-to-material mappings at (a) ICRU rectum (b) balloon center
Figure 3
Figure 3
Barplots showing different heterogeneity factors for different contrast-to-material mappings at (a) ICRU rectum (b) balloon center
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Viswanathan AN, Erickson BA. Three-dimensional imaging in gynecologic brachytherapy: a survey of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:104–109. - PubMed
    1. 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;31:633–674. - PubMed
    1. Poon E, Williamson JF, Vuong T, et al. Patient-Specific Monte Carlo Dose Calculations for High-Dose-Rate Endorectal Brachytherapy With Shielded Intracavitary Applicator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:1259–1266. - PubMed
    1. Richardson S, Palaniswaamy G, Grigsby PW. Dosimetric effects of air pockets around high-dose rate brachytherapy vaginal cylinders. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:276–279. - PubMed
    1. Kwan IS, Wilkinson D, Cutajar D, et al. The effect of rectal heterogeneity on wall dose in high dose rate brachytherapy. Med Phys. 2009;36:224–232. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances