Skip to main content

SU‐GG‐T‐69: Comparison of Three Optimization Methods of BrachyVision™ for IORT Using HDR and HAM Applicator

Publication ,  Conference
Zhuang, T; Steffey, B; Song, H; Craciunescu, O
Published in: Medical Physics
January 1, 2010

Purpose: To compare the three optimization methods in BrachyVision™ (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) for flat surface implants using the HAM applicator; To study the effect of curvature of a surface implant on dosimetry. Method and Materials: Flat surface implants were generated in BrachyVision™ using three different optimization strategies offered in BrachyVision™: geometrical optimization normalized to a reference point (GO), volume optimization using reference lines (VO_RL), and volume optimization using a PTV concept (VO_PTV). For each plan, the following indices were computed: the coverage index V(x) (percentage of target volume receiving x% of the prescription dose or more) and the homogeneity index HI(x) (=V(100)‐V(x), with x = 140). Two curved geometries, 9 and 20 cm radius, were considered. For each radius, 9 and 18 channels were planned first as if for a flat implant. The obtained dwell times were then directly transferred to corresponding channels in the curved geometry and dose distribution calculated. Another plan was generated using VO_PTV method based on the curved PTV. Plans were compared in terms of V(100) and HI(140) and DVHs for PTV and normal tissue. Results: 1. For flat implants, GO achieves worse coverage index (86.5 %) than the two VO techniques (95.3% and 95.5%). PTV DVHs are comparable between the two VO techniques. While the VO methods use similar optimization time, VO_RL is easier and quicker to setup thus is the fastest method to use. For both 9 and 18 channel HAM and both radii, the difference between the V(100) and HI(140) is minimal between plans generated with flat dwell times and curved dwell times. Conclusion: The VO_RL is the fastest method for planning a flat IORT HAM surface implant. For radius larger than 9 cm, a curved implant can be simplified as a flat implant with negligible dosimetric difference. © 2010, American Association of Physicists in Medicine. All rights reserved.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Medical Physics

DOI

ISSN

0094-2405

Publication Date

January 1, 2010

Volume

37

Issue

6

Start / End Page

3200

Related Subject Headings

  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • 5105 Medical and biological physics
  • 4003 Biomedical engineering
  • 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis
  • 0903 Biomedical Engineering
  • 0299 Other Physical Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Zhuang, T., Steffey, B., Song, H., & Craciunescu, O. (2010). SU‐GG‐T‐69: Comparison of Three Optimization Methods of BrachyVision™ for IORT Using HDR and HAM Applicator. In Medical Physics (Vol. 37, p. 3200). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3468455
Zhuang, T., B. Steffey, H. Song, and O. Craciunescu. “SU‐GG‐T‐69: Comparison of Three Optimization Methods of BrachyVision™ for IORT Using HDR and HAM Applicator.” In Medical Physics, 37:3200, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3468455.
Zhuang T, Steffey B, Song H, Craciunescu O. SU‐GG‐T‐69: Comparison of Three Optimization Methods of BrachyVision™ for IORT Using HDR and HAM Applicator. In: Medical Physics. 2010. p. 3200.
Zhuang, T., et al. “SU‐GG‐T‐69: Comparison of Three Optimization Methods of BrachyVision™ for IORT Using HDR and HAM Applicator.” Medical Physics, vol. 37, no. 6, 2010, p. 3200. Scopus, doi:10.1118/1.3468455.
Zhuang T, Steffey B, Song H, Craciunescu O. SU‐GG‐T‐69: Comparison of Three Optimization Methods of BrachyVision™ for IORT Using HDR and HAM Applicator. Medical Physics. 2010. p. 3200.

Published In

Medical Physics

DOI

ISSN

0094-2405

Publication Date

January 1, 2010

Volume

37

Issue

6

Start / End Page

3200

Related Subject Headings

  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • 5105 Medical and biological physics
  • 4003 Biomedical engineering
  • 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis
  • 0903 Biomedical Engineering
  • 0299 Other Physical Sciences