Premium
TU‐AB‐201‐04: Optimizing the Number of Catheter Implants and Their Tracks for Prostate HDR Brachytherapy
Author(s) -
Riofrio D,
Zhou J,
Ma L,
Luan S
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4925542
Subject(s) - brachytherapy , prostate brachytherapy , implant , prostate , computer science , curvature , biomedical engineering , mathematics , medicine , surgery , radiation therapy , geometry , cancer
Purpose: In prostate HDR brachytherapy, interstitial implants are placed manually on the fly. The aim for this research is to develop a computer algorithm to find optimal and reliable implant trajectories using minimal number of implants. Methods: Our new algorithm mainly uses these key ideas: (1) positive charged static particles are uniformly placed on the surface of prostate and critical structures such as urethra, bladder, and rectum. (2) Positive charged kinetic particles are placed at a cross‐section of the prostate with an initial velocity parallel to the principal implant direction. (3) The kinetic particles move through the prostate, interacting with each other, spreading out, while staying away from the prostate surface and critical structures. The initial velocity ensures that the trajectories observe the curvature constraints of typical implant procedures. (4) The finial trajectories of kinetic particles are smoothed using a third‐degree polynomial regression, which become the implant trajectories. (5) The dwelling times and final dose distribution are calculated using least‐distance programming. Results: (1) We experimented with previously treated cases. Our plan achieves all prescription goals while reducing the number of implants by 41%! Our plan also has less uniform target dose, which implies a higher dose is delivered to the prostate. (2) We expect future implant procedures will be performed under the guidance of such pre‐calculated trajectories. To assess the applicability, we randomly perturb the tracks to mimic the manual implant errors. Our studies showed the impact of these perturbations are negligible, which is compensated by the least distance programming. Conclusions: We developed a new inverse planning system for prostate HDR therapy that can find optimal implant trajectories while minimizing the number of implants. For future work, we plan to integrate our new inverse planning system with an existing needle tracking system.