Epidemiology

Scopus Publication Detail

The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in Scopus. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication.

Impact of heterogeneity-based dose calculation using a deterministic grid-based boltzmann equation solver for intracavitary brachytherapy

Justin K. Mikell; Ann H. Klopp; Graciela M.N. Gonzalez; Kelly D. Kisling; Michael J. Price; Paula A. Berner; Patricia J. Eifel; Firas Mourtada (Profiled Authors: Patricia J Eifel; Ann H Klopp)

International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2012;83(3):e417-e422.

Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric impact of the heterogeneity dose calculation Acuros (Transpire Inc., Gig Harbor, WA), a grid-based Boltzmann equation solver (GBBS), for brachytherapy in a cohort of cervical cancer patients. Methods and Materials: The impact of heterogeneities was retrospectively assessed in treatment plans for 26 patients who had previously received ¹⁹²Ir intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer with computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance-compatible tandems and unshielded colpostats. The GBBS models sources, patient boundaries, applicators, and tissue heterogeneities. Multiple GBBS calculations were performed with and without solid model applicator, with and without overriding the patient contour to 1 g/cm ³ muscle, and with and without overriding contrast materials to muscle or 2.25 g/cm ³ bone. Impact of source and boundary modeling, applicator, tissue heterogeneities, and sensitivity of CT-to-material mapping of contrast were derived from the multiple calculations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 43 (TG-43) guidelines and the GBBS were compared for the following clinical dosimetric parameters: Manchester points A and B, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) report 38 rectal and bladder points, three and nine o'clock, and D2cm3 to the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid. Results: Points A and B, D 2 cm ³ bladder, ICRU bladder, and three and nine o'clock were within 5% of TG-43 for all GBBS calculations. The source and boundary and applicator account for most of the differences between the GBBS and TG-43 guidelines. The D 2cm3 rectum (n = 3), D 2cm3 sigmoid (n = 1), and ICRU rectum (n = 6) had differences of >5% from TG-43 for the worst case incorrect mapping of contrast to bone. Clinical dosimetric parameters were within 5% of TG-43 when rectal and balloon contrast were mapped to bone and radiopaque packing was not overridden. Conclusions: The GBBS has minimal impact on clinical parameters for this cohort of patients with unshielded applicators. The incorrect mapping of rectal and balloon contrast does not have a significant impact on clinical parameters. Rectal parameters may be sensitive to the mapping of radiopaque packing. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID: 22436788    

Scientific Context

This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.