Intraoperative computed tomography imaging for dose calculation in intraoperative electron radiation therapy: Initial clinical observations.
Algorithms
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Intraoperative Period
Patient Transfer
Preoperative Period
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, High-Energy
/ methods
Retroperitoneal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Sarcoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
04
08
2019
accepted:
12
12
2019
entrez:
11
1
2020
pubmed:
11
1
2020
medline:
6
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT) the energy of the electron beam is selected under the conventional assumption of water-equivalent tissues at the applicator end. However, the treatment field can deviate from the theoretic flat irradiation surface, thus altering dose profiles. This patient-based study explored the feasibility of acquiring intraoperative computed tomography (CT) studies for calculating three-dimensional dose distributions with two factors not included in the conventional assumption, namely the air gap from the applicator end to the irradiation surface and tissue heterogeneity. In addition, dose distributions under the conventional assumption and from preoperative CT studies (both also updated with intraoperative data) were calculated to explore whether there are other alternatives to intraoperative CT studies that can provide similar dose distributions. The IOERT protocol was modified to incorporate the acquisition of intraoperative CT studies before radiation delivery in six patients. Three studies were not valid to calculate dose distributions due to the presence of metal artefacts. For the remaining three cases, the average gamma pass rates between the doses calculated from intraoperative CT studies and those obtained assuming water-equivalent tissues or from preoperative CT studies were 73.4% and 74.0% respectively. The agreement increased when the air gap was included in the conventional assumption (98.1%) or in the preoperative CT images (98.4%). Therefore, this factor was the one mostly influencing the dose distributions of this study. Our experience has shown that intraoperative CT studies are not recommended when the procedure includes the use of shielding discs or surgical retractors unless metal artefacts are removed. IOERT dose distributions calculated under the conventional assumption or from preoperative CT studies may be inaccurate unless the air gap (which depends on the surface irregularities of the irradiated volume and on the applicator pose) is included in the calculations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31923183
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227155
pii: PONE-D-19-21966
pmc: PMC6953834
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.9248897']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0227155Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jan 27;12(1):37
pubmed: 28193241
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jun 7;54(11):3491-500
pubmed: 19436105
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Nov 1;63(3):952-60
pubmed: 16199324
Future Oncol. 2015;11(7):1047-58
pubmed: 25804120
Clin Transl Oncol. 2013 Sep;15(9):683-90
pubmed: 23463592
J Surg Res. 2014 Jun 15;189(2):193-7
pubmed: 24721602
Med Phys. 2013 Dec;40(12):121711
pubmed: 24320497
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006 Aug;59(2):106-15
pubmed: 16844383
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Apr 21;62(8):R49-R80
pubmed: 28323641
Z Med Phys. 2017 Sep;27(3):218-231
pubmed: 27567405
Mol Imaging Biol. 2009 Mar-Apr;11(2):107-13
pubmed: 18670824
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Feb 2;12(1):36
pubmed: 28148287
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Nov;113(2):283-9
pubmed: 25465728
Phys Med. 2015 Nov;31(7):692-701
pubmed: 26078013
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jan 7;60(1):375-401
pubmed: 25503853
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
pubmed: 9608475
Phys Med. 2019 Jan;57:207-214
pubmed: 30738527
Br J Radiol. 2016 Jul;89(1063):20160193
pubmed: 27188847
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Dec 7;59(23):7159-79
pubmed: 25365625
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jun 1;83(2):e287-95
pubmed: 22401923
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Mar 15;55(4):1102-8
pubmed: 12605990
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Dec 7;13(1):243
pubmed: 30526626
Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6080-9
pubmed: 23039647