Premium
SU‐F‐T‐45: Dosimetric Effects of Saline Filled Balloons During IORT Using Xoft Electronic Brachytherapy
Author(s) -
Redler G,
Templeton A,
Turian J,
Chu J,
Bernard D,
Zhen H,
Liao Y
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 - 10.1118/1.4956180
Subject(s) - brachytherapy , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , radiation treatment planning , dwell time , materials science , monte carlo method , medical physics , physics , radiation therapy , medicine , radiology , clinical psychology , statistics , mathematics
Purpose: The portability of Xoft Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy (EBx) System has made it a viable option for intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) treatment of early‐stage breast cancer. The low energy (50kVp) of the X‐ray source makes the shielding easy, but also means its dose distribution is sensitive to the medium's composition. Current treatment planning systems (TPS) typically assume homogenous water for brachytherapy dose calculations, including the pre‐calculated atlas plans for the Xoft IORT cases. However, Xoft recommends using saline to fill the balloon applicator. This study investigates the dosimetric difference due to the increased effective atomic number (Zeff) from water (7.42) to saline (7.56). Methods: The diameter of the balloon applicators ranges from 3–6cm, with 4cm being most frequently used. For the 4‐cm and 6‐cm diameter applicators, MCNP Monte Carlo program was used to calculate the dose at the surface (Ds) of the middle section of the balloon and 1 cm away (D1cm) for water‐ and saline‐filled balloons: one plan with a single dwell at the center and another with multiple dwells as in the atlas plans. The single dwell plan is a simple estimation of the dosimetry, while the atlas plan is representative of the actual dose distribution. Results: The single‐dwell plan showed a 5.1% and 6.1% decrease in Ds for the 4‐ and 6‐cm applicators, respectively, due to the saline. The atlas plan showed similar Results: 4.8% and 6.4% decrease, respectively. The decrease in D1cm is 4.3%–5.2% and 3.3%–5.3s% in the single‐dwell and atlas plans, respectively, for the 4‐ and 6‐cm applicator. Conclusion: The dosimetric effect introduced by saline is on the order of 5%. This effect should be taken into account during both treatment planning and patient outcome studies.