Search

Purpose: Even though High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy has good treatment outcomes in different treatment sites, treatment verification is far from widely implemented because of a lack of easily available solutions. Previously it has been shown that an imaging panel (IP) near the patient can be used to determine treatment parameters such as the dwell time and source positions in a single material pelvic phantom. In this study we will use a heterogeneous head phantom to test this IP approach, and simulate common treatment errors to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the error-detecting capabilities of the IP., Methods and Materials: A heterogeneous head-phantom consisting of soft tissue and bone equivalent materials was 3D-printed to simulate a base of tongue treatment. An High Dose Rate treatment plan with 3 different catheters was used to simulate a treatment delivery, using dwell times ranging from 0.3 s to 4 s and inter-dwell distances of 2 mm. The IP was used to measure dwell times, positions and detect simulated errors. Measured dwell times and positions were used to calculate the delivered dose., Results: Dwell times could be determined within 0.1 s. Source positions were measured with submillimeter accuracy in the plane of the IP, and average distance accuracy of 1.7 mm in three dimensions. All simulated treatment errors (catheter swap, catheter shift, afterloader errors) were detected. Dose calculations show slightly different distributions with the measured dwell positions and dwell times (gamma pass rate for 1 mm/1% of 96.5%)., Conclusions: Using an IP, it was possible to verify the treatment in a realistic heterogeneous phantom and detect certain treatment errors., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The various rectal endoluminal radiation techniques all have steep, but different, dose gradients. In rectal contact brachytherapy (CXB) doses are typically prescribed and reported to the applicator surface and not to the gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV) or organs at risk (OAR), which is crucial to understand tumor response and toxicity rates. To quantify the above-described problem, we performed a dose modeling study using a fixed prescription dose at the surface of the applicator and varied tumor response scenarios., Methods: Endorectal ultrasound-based 3D-volume-models of rectal tumors and the rectal wall were used to simulate the delivered dose to GTV, CTV and the rectal wall layers, assuming treatment with Maastro HDR contact applicator for rectal cancer with a fixed prescription dose to the applicator surface (equivalent to 3 × 30 Gy CXB) and various response scenarios., Results: An identical prescribed dose to the surface of the applicator resulted in a broad range of doses delivered to the GTV, CTV and the uninvolved intestinal wall. For example, the equieffective dose in 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) D90% of the GTV varied between 63 and 231 Gy, whereas the EQD2 D2cc of the rectal wall varied between 97 and 165 Gy., Conclusion: Doses prescribed at the surface are not representative of the dose received by the tumor and the bowel wall. This stresses the relevance of dose reporting and prescription to GTV and CTV volumes and OAR in order to gain insight between delivered dose, local control and toxicity and to optimize treatment protocols., (Copyright © 2022 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A clinical complete response is seen after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal tumors in 15%-20% of patients. These patients can potentially be spared mutilating total mesorectal excision surgery through a watch-and-wait policy. Recent studies show that dose escalation by a radiation boost increases the clinical complete response rate. The boost dose to the tumor can be administered through external beam radiotherapy or through internal radiotherapy using techniques like contact therapy, low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT). However, limited information is available concerning treatment-related toxicity of these techniques. With this systematic review, we aim to summarize and compare published data concerning acute and late toxicity after contact X-ray therapy (CXT) and BT for rectal cancer., Methods and Materials/results: Thirty-eight studies reporting toxicity after endorectal radiation techniques for rectal cancer were included, resulting in 3682 patients for analysis. Direct comparison of toxicity by the different radiation modes was hampered by various combinations of endorectal techniques, a lack of clear reporting of toxicity scores, dose prescription, technique used, and treated volumes. ≥ Grade 3 rectal toxicity was reported in 2.9% of patients having received only CXT; 6.3% of patients who received only BT had Grade 3 rectal toxicity, and BT also caused Grade 3 urinary toxicity in 1 patient., Conclusion: All techniques reported some ≥ Grade 3 toxicity. Toxicity after CXT was confined to the rectum, whereas after BT, urogenital toxicity and skin toxicity were seen as well. Unfortunately, few specific conclusions could be drawn regarding the dose-related risk of toxicity for the various techniques due to nonuniform reporting strategies and missing information. To enable future comparisons and improvements, the endorectal radiation field urgently needs consensus guidelines on dose reporting, dose prescription, treatment volume specification, and toxicity reporting., (Copyright © 2018 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)