How accurate is applicator reconstruction in HDR gynecological brachytherapy? Patient-specific results from an electromagnetic tracking system designed to intercept errors before radiation delivery.

IF 1.8
Christopher L Deufel, Justine M Dupere, Eric E Brost, Michael G Haddock, Allison E Garda
{"title":"How accurate is applicator reconstruction in HDR gynecological brachytherapy? Patient-specific results from an electromagnetic tracking system designed to intercept errors before radiation delivery.","authors":"Christopher L Deufel, Justine M Dupere, Eric E Brost, Michael G Haddock, Allison E Garda","doi":"10.1016/j.brachy.2025.04.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To measure brachytherapy applicator reconstruction accuracy for intracavitary and interstitial gynecological patients before HDR treatment delivery, with an emphasis on intercepting errors and quantifying dose uncertainties METHODS AND MATERIALS: A custom electromagnetic tracking quality assurance (QA) system, EMQA, was employed for pretreatment verification of the treatment planning system (TPS) applicator reconstruction for 25 gynecological HDR brachytherapy implants. TPS versus EMQA differences were quantified for applicator channel tips and shafts, and corresponding dose metric differences were calculated for the target and nearby organs at risk. Accuracy was evaluated as a function of applicator device type and EM sensor position and orientation with respect to the CT table and EM field generator.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Applicator channel reconstruction differences between the clinical plan and EM tracking were (mean ± standard deviation [minimum, maximum]) 0.76 ± 0.43 (0.05, 2.48) mm for channel tips and 0.41 ± 0.26 (0.03, 2.47) mm for shafts. Dose metric differences (% of Rx) for the HRCTV, bladder, rectum, large bowel, and small bowel were <2.3% on average, but differences up to 10.5% were observed. Agreement for needles was improved for needles implanted within a hybrid applicator compared with freehand placement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An EM tracking-based QA system enabled patient-specific, pretreatment verification of applicator channel reconstruction before radiation delivery. Although applicator channel reconstruction errors were observed to be small for a variety of gynecological brachytherapy applicator and implant types, the system has the potential to intercept rare and serious errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":93914,"journal":{"name":"Brachytherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brachytherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2025.04.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To measure brachytherapy applicator reconstruction accuracy for intracavitary and interstitial gynecological patients before HDR treatment delivery, with an emphasis on intercepting errors and quantifying dose uncertainties METHODS AND MATERIALS: A custom electromagnetic tracking quality assurance (QA) system, EMQA, was employed for pretreatment verification of the treatment planning system (TPS) applicator reconstruction for 25 gynecological HDR brachytherapy implants. TPS versus EMQA differences were quantified for applicator channel tips and shafts, and corresponding dose metric differences were calculated for the target and nearby organs at risk. Accuracy was evaluated as a function of applicator device type and EM sensor position and orientation with respect to the CT table and EM field generator.

Results: Applicator channel reconstruction differences between the clinical plan and EM tracking were (mean ± standard deviation [minimum, maximum]) 0.76 ± 0.43 (0.05, 2.48) mm for channel tips and 0.41 ± 0.26 (0.03, 2.47) mm for shafts. Dose metric differences (% of Rx) for the HRCTV, bladder, rectum, large bowel, and small bowel were <2.3% on average, but differences up to 10.5% were observed. Agreement for needles was improved for needles implanted within a hybrid applicator compared with freehand placement.

Conclusions: An EM tracking-based QA system enabled patient-specific, pretreatment verification of applicator channel reconstruction before radiation delivery. Although applicator channel reconstruction errors were observed to be small for a variety of gynecological brachytherapy applicator and implant types, the system has the potential to intercept rare and serious errors.

在HDR妇科近距离治疗中涂抹器重建的准确性如何?病人特定的结果从电磁跟踪系统设计,以拦截错误前辐射输送。
目的:测量腔内及间质妇科患者在HDR治疗交付前近距离施放器重建的准确性,重点是拦截误差和量化剂量不确定性。方法与材料:采用定制的电磁跟踪质量保证(QA)系统EMQA对25例妇科HDR近距离治疗植入物的治疗计划系统(TPS)施放器重建进行预处理验证。对施药器通道尖端和通道轴的TPS和EMQA差异进行量化,并计算靶和附近危险器官的相应剂量度量差异。准确度被评估为应用器设备类型和电磁传感器相对于CT表和电磁场发生器的位置和方向的函数。结果:应用器通道重建在临床方案和EM跟踪之间的差异为(平均值±标准差[最小,最大])0.76±0.43 (0.05,2.48)mm的通道尖端和0.41±0.26 (0.03,2.47)mm的轴。HRCTV、膀胱、直肠、大肠和小肠的剂量计量差异(Rx的%)是:结论:基于EM跟踪的QA系统能够在放射输送前对施药器通道重建进行患者特异性的预处理验证。尽管对于各种妇科近距离放射治疗的涂抹器和植入物类型,观察到涂抹器通道重建错误很小,但该系统具有拦截罕见和严重错误的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信