Skip to main content

SU‐E‐J‐88: Dose Summation Between Multimodality Treatments for Cervical Cancer

Publication ,  Journal Article
Ding, L; Chino, J; Cai, J; Steffey, B; Meltsner, S; Yang, Y; Craciunescu, O
Published in: Medical Physics
January 1, 2013

Purpose: 1) To explore the feasibility of volumetric dose summation between external beam radiation (EBRT) and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatments for cervical cancer, and 2) to investigate the differences between two deformable registration platforms: MIM Software (M) and VelocityAI (V). Methods: Five patients treated with combined EBRT (45 Gy) and HDR (5 x 5.5 Gy/FX, T&R) were selected in this study. The doses were converted to EQD2 (α/β of 10 for early and 3 for late effects). The HDR CT sets were registered using rigid (r), based on applicator, and deformable (d) registration. To quantify geometrical similarities between the deformed secondary and the original primary structures, the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was calculated for HRCTV (for HDR sums only), bladder, and rectum. Each HDR fractional dose was resampled to a primary set. The registration between EBRT and HDR was performed using the HDR primary CT. The metrics HRCTV D90, and bladder/rectum D2cc were extracted from total dose DVHs and compared to the current clinical point dose summation protocol. Results: The average DSC for HRCTV, bladder and rectum was 0.72, 0.71, and 0.56 for MIM and 0.71, 0.70, and 0.51 for Velocity. Volumetric dose summation between the two modalities lead to differences from the point summation of 2.1±1.6% (r, M), 3.2±2.0% (r, V), 2.6±1.9% (d, M), and 3.9±1.5% (d, V) for HRCTV D90, 8.9±6.7% (r, M), 9.9±6.5% (r, V), 10.2± 6.2 (d, M), and 9.4± 4.5% (d, V) for bladder, and 5.2±3.4% (r, M), 5.0± 1.1%(r, V), 5.2± 3.3% (d, M), and 5.3± 3.8% (d, V) for rectum. Conclusion: The two algorithms produced similar results, with expected better DSC for HRCTV and bladder than for rectum. With understanding of the limitations of current deformable registration algorithms, 3D dose summation can be accomplished and composite dose estimates can be improved. © 2013, American Association of Physicists in Medicine. All rights reserved.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Medical Physics

DOI

ISSN

0094-2405

Publication Date

January 1, 2013

Volume

40

Issue

6

Start / End Page

170

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
Ding, L., Chino, J., Cai, J., Steffey, B., Meltsner, S., Yang, Y., & Craciunescu, O. (2013). SU‐E‐J‐88: Dose Summation Between Multimodality Treatments for Cervical Cancer. Medical Physics, 40(6), 170. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4814300
Ding, L., J. Chino, J. Cai, B. Steffey, S. Meltsner, Y. Yang, and O. Craciunescu. “SU‐E‐J‐88: Dose Summation Between Multimodality Treatments for Cervical Cancer.” Medical Physics 40, no. 6 (January 1, 2013): 170. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4814300.
Ding L, Chino J, Cai J, Steffey B, Meltsner S, Yang Y, et al. SU‐E‐J‐88: Dose Summation Between Multimodality Treatments for Cervical Cancer. Medical Physics. 2013 Jan 1;40(6):170.
Ding, L., et al. “SU‐E‐J‐88: Dose Summation Between Multimodality Treatments for Cervical Cancer.” Medical Physics, vol. 40, no. 6, Jan. 2013, p. 170. Scopus, doi:10.1118/1.4814300.
Ding L, Chino J, Cai J, Steffey B, Meltsner S, Yang Y, Craciunescu O. SU‐E‐J‐88: Dose Summation Between Multimodality Treatments for Cervical Cancer. Medical Physics. 2013 Jan 1;40(6):170.

Published In

Medical Physics

DOI

ISSN

0094-2405

Publication Date

January 1, 2013

Volume

40

Issue

6

Start / End Page

170

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