Display options
Cite
Palmer A, Hayman O, Muscat S. Treatment planning study of the 3D dosimetric differences between Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervix cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2012;4(1):52-9doi: 10.5114/jcb.2012.27952.
Palmer, A., Hayman, O., & Muscat, S. (2012). Treatment planning study of the 3D dosimetric differences between Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervix cancer. Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 4(1), 52-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2012.27952
Palmer, Antony, et al. "Treatment planning study of the 3D dosimetric differences between Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervix cancer." Journal of contemporary brachytherapy vol. 4,1 (2012): 52-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2012.27952
Palmer A, Hayman O, Muscat S. Treatment planning study of the 3D dosimetric differences between Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervix cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2012 Mar;4(1):52-9. doi: 10.5114/jcb.2012.27952. Epub 2012 Mar 30. PMID: 23346140; PMCID: PMC3551368.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2012 Mar;4(1):52-9. doi: 10.5114/jcb.2012.27952. Epub 2012 Mar 30.

Treatment planning study of the 3D dosimetric differences between Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervix cancer.

Journal of contemporary brachytherapy

Antony Palmer, Orla Hayman, Sarah Muscat

Affiliations

  1. Medical Physics Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK ; Department of Physics, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Science, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK.

PMID: 23346140 PMCID: PMC3551368 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2012.27952

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether Co-60 is equivalent to Ir-192 for HDR cervical brachytherapy, through 3D-DVH dose comparisons in standard and optimised plans. Previous studies have only considered 2D dosimetry, point dose comparisons or identical loading. Typical treatment times and economics are considered.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Plans were produced for eight cervix patients using Co-60 and Ir-192 sources, CT imaging and IU/two-channel-ring applicator (Eckert Ziegler BEBIG). The comparison was made under two conditions: (A) identical dwell positions and loading, prescribed to Point A and (B) optimised source dwells, prescribed to HR-CTV. This provided a direct comparison of inherent differences and residual differences under typical clinical plan optimisation. The DVH (target and OAR), ICRU reference points and isodose distributions were compared. Typical treatment times and source replacement costs were compared.

RESULTS: Small differences (p < 0.01) in 3D dosimetry exist when using Co-60 compared to Ir-192, prescribed to Point A with identical loading patterns, particularly 3.3% increase in rectum D2cc. No significant difference was observed in this parameter when prescribing to the HR-CTV using dwell-time optimisation. There was no statistically significant difference in D90 between the two isotopes. Co-60 plans delivered consistently higher V150% (mean +4.4%, p = 0.03) and V400% (mean +11.6%, p < 0.01) compared to Ir-192 in optimised plans. Differences in physical source properties were overwhelmed by geometric effects.

CONCLUSIONS: Co-60 may be used as an effective alternative to Ir-192 for HDR cervix brachytherapy, producing similar plans of equivalent D90, but with logistical benefits. There is a small dose increase along the extension of the source axis when using Co-60 compared to Ir-192, leading to small rectal dose increases for identical loading patterns. This can be eliminated by planning optimisation techniques. Such optimisation may also be associated with increases in the overdose volume (V150-V400) with Co-60 compared to Ir-192.

Keywords: Co-60; brachytherapy; cervix cancer; high dose-rate (HDR); treatment plan

References

  1. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2011 Dec;3(4):199-208 - PubMed
  2. Appl Radiat Isot. 2009 Jul-Aug;67(7-8):1426-31 - PubMed
  3. Radiother Oncol. 2006 Jan;78(1):67-77 - PubMed
  4. Med Phys. 1983 Mar-Apr;10(2):176-83 - PubMed
  5. Med Phys. 2010 Mar;37(3):1365-70 - PubMed
  6. Med Phys. 2004 Mar;31(3):633-74 - PubMed
  7. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2010 Jun;2(2):71-75 - PubMed
  8. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2010 Mar;2(1):28-32 - PubMed
  9. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2010 Aug 19;4:89-94 - PubMed
  10. Strahlenther Onkol. 2008 Apr;184(4):187-92 - PubMed
  11. Radiat Oncol. 2011 Feb 04;6:11 - PubMed
  12. Med Phys. 1996 Apr;23(4):537-43 - PubMed
  13. Radiology. 1964 Aug;83:344-5 - PubMed
  14. Med Phys. 2008 Apr;35(4):1280-7 - PubMed
  15. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Aug 1;48(1):201-11 - PubMed
  16. Med Phys. 2007 Sep;34(9):3485-8 - PubMed
  17. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006 May-Jun;16(3):1101-5 - PubMed

Publication Types