Premium
MO‐FF‐A1‐05: On‐line CT Verification of Needle Applicator Positions in HDR Prostate Brachytherapy
Author(s) -
Huang Y,
Miller B,
Doemer A,
Nurushev T,
Chetty I,
Aref I
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.3469141
Subject(s) - fiducial marker , brachytherapy , nuclear medicine , medicine , prostate , prostate brachytherapy , radiation treatment planning , displacement (psychology) , prostate cancer , radiation therapy , radiology , cancer , psychology , psychotherapist
Purpose : Needle applicators have shown displacement between fractions during HDR prostate brachytherapy, which will degrade plan quality. Typically, displacement is determined by analyzing catheters on a verification CT (vCT) or port films obtained before treatment relative to fiducials or bony landmarks. We present a procedure to verify applicator positions to achieve planned dose distributions by registering vCT directly to planning CTs (pCT). Method and Materials : Patients received a vCT prior to each fraction. This was imported to BrachyVision (Varian Medical Systems) and fused to the pCT by rigid‐body registration based on matching urethra and three prostate‐implanted gold fiducials. Then, applicators in the vCT were compared to applicators in the pCT in a reconstructed plane through each catheter and any difference larger than 3mm was manually adjusted by a radiation oncologist before treatment. To assess treatment quality, the prostate volume was copied from pCT to vCT and the planned dwell positions/time was applied to the vCT applicators. Results : Two consecutive patients were treated using our CT registration needle verification method. Both patients required applicator adjustments in the first two fractions. Patient one had an average 7mm cranial‐to‐caudal applicator displacement, corresponding to 23% and 12% fractional drop in V100 prostate respectively; Patient two had displacement in both cranial‐to‐caudal and caudal‐to‐cranial directions up to 9mm, but due to minimum loading of affected applicators, no significant decrease in V100 prostate was seen. Neither patient required applicator adjustment at the S rd /last fraction. Despite differences in applicator displacement, post‐adjustment, the achieved V100 prostate at each fraction deviated from planned value by less than 4% for both patients. The distances between fiducials in vCTs were consistent with those in pCTs within 3mm, confirming that fiducials are appropriate landmarks for registration. Conclusion : We have successfully treated two patients using this method. This technique ensures the treatment quality closely matches plan quality.