Purpose:
To assess the variation in dose received by the organs at risk (OARs) due to inter‐fractional motion by SAVI to determine the importance of providing proper immobilization
Methods:
An analysis of 15 patients treated with SAVI applicators were considered for this study. Treatment planning teams did not see significant changes in their CT scans through scout images and initial treatment plan was used for the entire treatment. These scans, taken before each treatment were imported in to the treatment planning system and were fused together with respective to the applicator, using landmark registration. Dosimetric evaluations were performed. Dose received by skin, ribs and PTV(Planning target volume) respect to the initial treatment plan were measured.
Results:
Contours of the OARs were not similar with the initial image. Deduction in volumes of PTV and cavity, small deviations in displacements from the applicator to the OARs, difference in doses received by the OARs between treatments were noticed. The maximum, minimum, average doses varied between 10% to 20% 5% to 8% and 15% to 20% in ribs and skin. The 0.1cc doses to OARs showed an average change of 10% of the prescribed dose. PTV was receiving a different dose than the estimated dose
Conclusion:
The variation in volumes and isodoses related to the OARs, PTV receiving a lesser dose than the prescribed dose indicate that the estimated doses are different from the received dose. This study reveals the urgent need of improving the immobilization methods. Taking a CT scan before each treatment and replanning is helpful to minimize the risk of delivering undesired high doses to the OARs. Patient positioning, motion, respiration, observer differences and time lap between the planning and treating can arise more complications. VacLock, Positioning cushions, Image guided brachytherapy and adjustable registration should be used for further improvements.
Purpose:
To assess the best approach in accept a treatment plan for APBI Savi patients. Should we run a treatment verification test prior to delivering it to the patient? Should we check each CT scan in regards to the initial one in dosimetrical terms? Do we need deformable registration and adaptive planning for each fraction? These are the questions we want to answer running a dosimetric analysis of the dose variances for APBI treatments who receive 10 fractions and no re‐planning has been done being considered unnecessary with today's means of assessment.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis of 30 patients treated with SAVI applicators were considered for this study. The CT scans taken before each treatment were imported in the treatment planning system and registered with the initial CT scan. The images were fused together with respective to the applicator, using landmark registration. Dosimetric evaluations were performed. Dose received by skin, ribs and PTV on CT images with respect to the initial treatment plan were recorded including maximum, average and minimum dose
Results:
All the structures displayed changes in volume over the 10 fractions of treatment. The cavities reduction in volume was considerable with a maximum reduction of over 10%. The PTV‐eval is covered better due to this fact while the critical organs manifest an increase in the total and maximum dose delivered. Ribs and skin surface that are required by B39 protocol to be monitored can acquire maximum doses of 20% to 30% respectively.
Conclusion:
A dosimetric evaluation prior to the initial treatment and prior to each of the 10 fractions is proven to be necessary. Deformable registration and adaptive planning have to be studied more and eventually implemented for every patient who received more than one fraction of any type of brachytherapy treatment. Immobilization ad localization methods must be improved and studied further
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.