| Περίληψη: | Τhe purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze the influence of the possible errors eventually occurring in a 3D-US based HDR Brachytherapy of prostate cancer on the quality of dose delivery. The influence of modulation restriction tool on the plan quality and sensitivity is also investigated.
Materials: Twelve clinical implants for HDR Brachytherapy of prostate cancer have been selected out of the clinical routine. The range of the prostate volumes was 26-101 cm3. Due to the fact that the implanted needles are fixed on the template, the most probable error should be a systematic shift of the implanted catheters on the cranial-caudal direction caused by the movement of the patient relative to the template. The planning was done using HIPO which is implemented in the real time intraoperative planning system Oncentra Prostate (OcP). HIPO offers a unique modulation restriction option that limits the free modulation of dwell times. Firstly the reference plans, where no catheter shift has been simulated, the clinical with MR >0 and the theoretical with MR=0, for all 12 implants have been compared. Then for each of the 12 clinical implants, 10 systematic shifts of the implanted catheters in the range of [-5, +5] mm in step of 1mm were simulated. The influence of this systematic shift on DVH-, COIN, EI and radiobiological parameters of PTV and OARs is calculated and recorded. The analysis of the observed changes has been done firstly by addressing the quality of the implant. For this purpose the range of shift was estimated that the resulted 3D dose distributions keep fulfilling the clinical dosimetric protocol. Secondly, the focus was placed to the stability of the dose distribution. Here the range for the shift has been estimated which enables that the dosimetric, conformity and radiobiological parameters of the implant remain within ±5% or ±10% of the originally planned values.
Results: The use of modulation restriction (MR>0) results in plans with more conformal dose distribution (COIN, EI) but slightly lower D90 and V100 , gEUD, EUD2,v and EUD2,s values. The quality analysis demonstrate that for the DVH based parameters values of prostate a maximal shift of ±1.0 mm can be tolerated, although in case of using the modulation restriction the sensitivity from the influence of the systematic shift is greater. Similar were the results for the DVH parameters for urethra, rectum and bladder. For the stability analysis in order to keep the dosimetric parameters within ±5% of the originally planned value for the prostate and OARs, a maximum shift of around ±0.5 mm can be tolerated and for the ±10% criterion this is -1.0/+0.5 mm. The same behavior applies for the radiobiological parameters. The analysis based on COIN considering only the target and also the OARs have shown a maximum shift range of ±1.5 mm. For the EI analysis this range is ±0.0 mm. For ±10% criterion this is ±2.5 mm and ±0.5 mm respectively.
Conclusion: Our study has demonstrated that high modulated, high conformal Brachytherapy dose distributions for prostate HDR implants are sensitive to systematic catheter shift. The consequence of shift changes is not clear. We can generally speak about a required geometrical stability of the implant as high as ±1.0mm. Modulation restriction without improving this reduces significantly the total dwell time keeping the plan quality and increasing conformity (COIN, EI).
|
|---|
