Premium
SU‐F‐T‐03: Radiobiological Evaluation of a Directional Brachytherapy Device Surgically Implanted Following EBRT
Author(s) -
Rivard MJ,
Emrich JG,
Poli J
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4956138
Subject(s) - brachytherapy , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , californium , radiation treatment planning , external beam radiotherapy , radiation therapy , relative biological effectiveness , medicine , radiochemistry , radiation , radiology , chemistry , optics , physics , quantum mechanics , neutron
Purpose: Preceding surgical implantation following external‐beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivery, a radiobiological evaluation was performed for a new LDR Pd‐103 directional brachytherapy device (CivaSheet). As this was the first case with the device used in combination with EBRT, there was concern to determine the appropriate prescription dose. Methods: The radiobiological model of Dale (1985, 1989) was used for a permanent LDR implant including radioactive decay. The biological effective dose (BED) was converted to the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) for comparison with EBRT prescription expectations. Given IMRT delivery of 50.4 Gy, an LDR brachytherapy dose of approximately 15–20 Gy EQD2 was desired. To be specific to the treatment site (leiomyosarcoma T2bN0M0, grade 2 with R1 surgical margin), the radiobiological model required several radiobiological parameters with values taken from the literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine their relative importance on the calculated BED and subsequent EQD2. The Pd‐103 decay constant (λ=0.0017 h −1 ) was also used. DVHs were prepared for pre‐ and post‐surgical geometries to glean the possible and realized implant geometric configuration. DVHs prepared in VariSeed9 were converted to BEDVHs and subsequently EQD2 values for each volume‐element. Results: For a physical dose of 28 Gy to a 0.5 cm depth, BED=21.7 Gy and EQD2=17.6 Gy, which was near the center of the desired EQD2 range. Tumor bed (CTV=4 cm 3 ) coverage was 99.2% with 48 sources implanted. In order of decreasing importance from the sensitivity analysis, the radiobiological parameters were α=0.25 Gy −1 , T POT =23 days, α/β=8.6 Gy, and T=1.5 h. Percentage variations in these values produced EQD2 variations of 40%, 20%, 18%, and 1%, respectively. Conclusion: This radiobiological evaluation indicated that prescription dose may be determined for comparison with the desired EQD2, and that radiobiologicalparameter uncertainties produce smaller EQD2 differences than had physical dose been simply added to EBRT dose. Research support provided in part by CivaTech Oncology, Inc. for Dr. Rivard.