Endo-rectal balloon cavity dosimetry in a phantom: Performance under IMRT and helical tomotherapy beams

Nicholas Hardcastle, Peter E. Metcalfe, Anatoly B. Rosenfeld, Wolfgang A. Tome

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and purpose: The use of endo-rectal balloons as immobilisation devices in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer has led to improved target position reproducibility and a decrease in rectal toxicity. The air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon in photon radiotherapy perturbs the dose distribution. In this study, the effect of the balloon cavity on the dose distribution and the accuracy to which two treatment planning systems calculate the dose distribution were investigated. Materials and methods: Single beams as well as 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy treatment plans were investigated using a specifically constructed phantom. Radiochromic film was used to measure the cavity wall doses and cavity wall DVHs. Results: For a 70 Gy prescription dose both the Pinnacle and TomoTherapy TPSs over-predicted the anterior cavity wall dose by 1.43 Gy, 3.92 Gy and 2.67 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. The posterior cavity wall dose was under-predicted by 2.62 Gy, 2.01 Gy and 4.79 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. An over-prediction by the Pinnacle RTPS of the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values for the cavity wall DVH was measured for the 3D conformal and conventional IMRT cases. These reductions may lead to a less than expected rectal toxicity. The TomoTherapy RTPS under-predicted the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values which may lead to higher rectal toxicity than predicted. Conclusion: Calculation of dose around an air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon provides a challenge for radiotherapy planning systems. Various electronic disequilibrium situations exist due to the cavity, which can lead to a lower anterior rectal wall and higher posterior rectal wall dose than that calculated by planning systems. This has consequences for comparisons of dose volume constraints between different modalities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)48-56
Number of pages9
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume92
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy
Air
Photons
Immobilization
Prescriptions
Prostatic Neoplasms
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics
V 70

Keywords

  • Cavity
  • Endo-rectal balloon
  • IMRT
  • Radiochromic film
  • Tomotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Hematology

Cite this

Endo-rectal balloon cavity dosimetry in a phantom : Performance under IMRT and helical tomotherapy beams. / Hardcastle, Nicholas; Metcalfe, Peter E.; Rosenfeld, Anatoly B.; Tome, Wolfgang A.

In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 92, No. 1, 07.2009, p. 48-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hardcastle, Nicholas ; Metcalfe, Peter E. ; Rosenfeld, Anatoly B. ; Tome, Wolfgang A. / Endo-rectal balloon cavity dosimetry in a phantom : Performance under IMRT and helical tomotherapy beams. In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2009 ; Vol. 92, No. 1. pp. 48-56.
@article{fdd8a4fde79e486990613ba9a863b367,
title = "Endo-rectal balloon cavity dosimetry in a phantom: Performance under IMRT and helical tomotherapy beams",
abstract = "Background and purpose: The use of endo-rectal balloons as immobilisation devices in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer has led to improved target position reproducibility and a decrease in rectal toxicity. The air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon in photon radiotherapy perturbs the dose distribution. In this study, the effect of the balloon cavity on the dose distribution and the accuracy to which two treatment planning systems calculate the dose distribution were investigated. Materials and methods: Single beams as well as 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy treatment plans were investigated using a specifically constructed phantom. Radiochromic film was used to measure the cavity wall doses and cavity wall DVHs. Results: For a 70 Gy prescription dose both the Pinnacle and TomoTherapy TPSs over-predicted the anterior cavity wall dose by 1.43 Gy, 3.92 Gy and 2.67 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. The posterior cavity wall dose was under-predicted by 2.62 Gy, 2.01 Gy and 4.79 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. An over-prediction by the Pinnacle RTPS of the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values for the cavity wall DVH was measured for the 3D conformal and conventional IMRT cases. These reductions may lead to a less than expected rectal toxicity. The TomoTherapy RTPS under-predicted the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values which may lead to higher rectal toxicity than predicted. Conclusion: Calculation of dose around an air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon provides a challenge for radiotherapy planning systems. Various electronic disequilibrium situations exist due to the cavity, which can lead to a lower anterior rectal wall and higher posterior rectal wall dose than that calculated by planning systems. This has consequences for comparisons of dose volume constraints between different modalities.",
keywords = "Cavity, Endo-rectal balloon, IMRT, Radiochromic film, Tomotherapy",
author = "Nicholas Hardcastle and Metcalfe, {Peter E.} and Rosenfeld, {Anatoly B.} and Tome, {Wolfgang A.}",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2009.03.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "48--56",
journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
issn = "0167-8140",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endo-rectal balloon cavity dosimetry in a phantom

T2 - Performance under IMRT and helical tomotherapy beams

AU - Hardcastle, Nicholas

AU - Metcalfe, Peter E.

AU - Rosenfeld, Anatoly B.

AU - Tome, Wolfgang A.

PY - 2009/7

Y1 - 2009/7

N2 - Background and purpose: The use of endo-rectal balloons as immobilisation devices in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer has led to improved target position reproducibility and a decrease in rectal toxicity. The air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon in photon radiotherapy perturbs the dose distribution. In this study, the effect of the balloon cavity on the dose distribution and the accuracy to which two treatment planning systems calculate the dose distribution were investigated. Materials and methods: Single beams as well as 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy treatment plans were investigated using a specifically constructed phantom. Radiochromic film was used to measure the cavity wall doses and cavity wall DVHs. Results: For a 70 Gy prescription dose both the Pinnacle and TomoTherapy TPSs over-predicted the anterior cavity wall dose by 1.43 Gy, 3.92 Gy and 2.67 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. The posterior cavity wall dose was under-predicted by 2.62 Gy, 2.01 Gy and 4.79 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. An over-prediction by the Pinnacle RTPS of the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values for the cavity wall DVH was measured for the 3D conformal and conventional IMRT cases. These reductions may lead to a less than expected rectal toxicity. The TomoTherapy RTPS under-predicted the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values which may lead to higher rectal toxicity than predicted. Conclusion: Calculation of dose around an air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon provides a challenge for radiotherapy planning systems. Various electronic disequilibrium situations exist due to the cavity, which can lead to a lower anterior rectal wall and higher posterior rectal wall dose than that calculated by planning systems. This has consequences for comparisons of dose volume constraints between different modalities.

AB - Background and purpose: The use of endo-rectal balloons as immobilisation devices in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer has led to improved target position reproducibility and a decrease in rectal toxicity. The air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon in photon radiotherapy perturbs the dose distribution. In this study, the effect of the balloon cavity on the dose distribution and the accuracy to which two treatment planning systems calculate the dose distribution were investigated. Materials and methods: Single beams as well as 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy treatment plans were investigated using a specifically constructed phantom. Radiochromic film was used to measure the cavity wall doses and cavity wall DVHs. Results: For a 70 Gy prescription dose both the Pinnacle and TomoTherapy TPSs over-predicted the anterior cavity wall dose by 1.43 Gy, 3.92 Gy and 2.67 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. The posterior cavity wall dose was under-predicted by 2.62 Gy, 2.01 Gy and 4.79 Gy for 3D conformal, conventional IMRT and helical tomotherapy, respectively. An over-prediction by the Pinnacle RTPS of the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values for the cavity wall DVH was measured for the 3D conformal and conventional IMRT cases. These reductions may lead to a less than expected rectal toxicity. The TomoTherapy RTPS under-predicted the V50, V60, V65 and V70 values which may lead to higher rectal toxicity than predicted. Conclusion: Calculation of dose around an air cavity created by an endo-rectal balloon provides a challenge for radiotherapy planning systems. Various electronic disequilibrium situations exist due to the cavity, which can lead to a lower anterior rectal wall and higher posterior rectal wall dose than that calculated by planning systems. This has consequences for comparisons of dose volume constraints between different modalities.

KW - Cavity

KW - Endo-rectal balloon

KW - IMRT

KW - Radiochromic film

KW - Tomotherapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=66949116612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=66949116612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.03.004

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.03.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 19339071

AN - SCOPUS:66949116612

VL - 92

SP - 48

EP - 56

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

SN - 0167-8140

IS - 1

ER -