Premium
SU‐G‐201‐15: Nomogram as an Efficient Dosimetric Verification Tool in HDR Prostate Brachytherapy
Author(s) -
Liang J,
Todor D
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 - 10.1118/1.4956888
Subject(s) - nomogram , brachytherapy , kerma , nuclear medicine , medicine , radiation treatment planning , implant , dosimetry , prostate brachytherapy , radiation therapy , radiology , surgery , oncology
Purpose: Nomogram as a simple QA tool for HDR prostate brachytherapy treatment planning has been developed and validated clinically. Reproducibility including patient‐to‐patient and physician‐to‐physician variability was assessed. Methods: The study was performed on HDR prostate implants from physician A (n=34) and B (n=15) using different implant techniques and planning methodologies. A nomogram was implemented as an independent QA of computer‐based treatment planning before plan execution. Normalized implant strength (total air kerma strength Sk*t in cGy cm 2 divided by prescribed dose in cGy) was plotted as a function of PTV volume and total V100. A quadratic equation was used to fit the data with R 2 denoting the model predictive power. Results: All plans showed good target coverage while OARs met the dose constraint guidelines. Vastly different implant and planning styles were reflected on conformity index (entire dose matrix V100/PTV volume, physician A implants: 1.27±0.14, physician B: 1.47±0.17) and PTV V150/PTV volume ratio (physician A: 0.34±0.09, physician B: 0.24±0.07). The quadratic model provided a better fit for the curved relationship between normalized implant strength and total V100 (or PTV volume) than a simple linear function. Unlike the normalized implant strength versus PTV volume nomogram which differed between physicians, a unique quadratic model based nomogram (Sk*t)/D=−0.0008V2+0.0542V+1.1185 (R 2 =0.9977) described the dependence of normalized implant strength on total V100 over all the patients from both physicians despite two different implant and planning philosophies. Normalized implant strength ‐ total V100 model also generated less deviant points distorting the smoothed ones with a significantly higher correlation. Conclusion: A simple and universal, excel‐based nomogram was created as an independent calculation tool for HDR prostate brachytherapy. Unlike similar attempts, our nomogram is insensitive to implant style and does not rely on reproducing dose calculations using TG‐43 formalism, thus making it a truly independent check.