Search

Purpose: The aim of this study is to perform three‐dimensional (3D) source position reconstruction by combining in vivo dosimetry measurements from two independent detector systems. Methods: Time‐resolved dosimetry was performed in a water phantom during HDR brachytherapy irradiation with 192Ir source using two detector systems. The first was based on three plastic scintillator detectors and the second on a single inorganic crystal (CsI:Tl). Brachytherapy treatments were simulated in water under TG‐43U1 conditions, including a HDR prostate plan. Treatment needles were placed in distances covering a range of source movement of 120 mm around the detectors. The distance from each dwell position to each scintillator was determined based on the measured dose rates. The three distances given by the mPSD were recalculated to a position along the catheter (z) and a distance radially away from the mPSD (xy) for each dwell position (a circumference around the mPSD). The source x, y, and z coordinates were derived from the intersection of the mPSD's circumference with the sphere around the ISD based on the distance to this detector. We evaluated the accuracy of the source position reconstruction as a function of the distance to the source, the most likely location for detector positioning within a prostate volume, as well as the capacity to detect positioning errors. Results: Approximately 4000 source dwell positions were tracked for eight different HDR plans. An intersection of the mPSD torus and the ISD sphere was observed in 77.2% of the dwell positions, assuming no uncertainty in the dose rate determined distance. This increased to 100% if 1σ search regions were added. However, only 73(96)% of the expected dwell positions were found within the intersection band for 1(2) σ uncertainties. The agreement between the source's reconstructed and expected positions was within 3 mm for a range of distances to the source up to 50 mm. The experiments on a HDR prostate plan, showed that by having at least one of the detectors located in the middle of the prostate volume, reduces the measurement deviations considerably compared to scenarios where the detectors were located outside of the prostate volume. The analysis showed a detection probability that, in most cases, is far from the random detection threshold. Errors of 1(2) mm can be detected in ranges of 5–25 (25–50) mm from the source, with a true detection probability rate higher than 80%, while the false probability rate is kept below 20%. Conclusions: By combining two detector responses, we enabled the determination of the absolute source coordinates. The combination of the mPSD and the ISD in vivo dosimetry constitutes a promising alternative for real‐time 3D source tracking in HDR brachytherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To report on the accuracy of an in vivo dosimetry (IVD)‐based source tracking (ST) method for high dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT). Methods: The ST was performed on a needle‐by‐needle basis. A least square fit of the expected to the measured dose rate was performed using the active dwell positions in the given needle. Two fitting parameters were used to determine the position of each needle relative to the IVD detector: radial (away or toward the detector) and longitudinal (along the axis of the treatment needle). The accuracy of the ST was assessed in a phantom where the geometries of five HDR prostate BT treatments previously treated at our clinic were reproduced. For each of the five treatment geometries, one irradiation was performed with the detector placed in the middle of the implant. Furthermore, four additional irradiations were performed for one of the geometries where the detector was retracted caudally in four steps of 10–15 mm and up to 12 mm inferior of the most inferior active dwell position, which represented the prostate apex. The time resolved dose measurements were retrieved at a rate of 20 Hz using a detector based on an Al2O3:C radioluminescence crystal, which was placed inside a standard BT needle. Individual calibrations of the detector were performed prior to each of the nine irradiations. Results: Source tracking could be applied in all needles across all nine irradiations. For irradiations with the detector located in the middle region of the implant (a total of 89 needles), the mean ± standard deviation (SD, k = 1) accuracy was −0.01 mm ± 0.38 mm and 0.30 mm ± 0.38 mm in the radial and longitudinal directions, respectively. Caudal retraction of the detector did not lead to reduced accuracy as long as the detector was located superior to the most inferior active dwell positions in all needles. However, reduced accuracy was observed for detector positions inferior to the most inferior active dwell positions which corresponded to detector positions in and inferior to the prostate apex region. Detector positions in the prostate apex and 12 mm inferior to the prostate resulted in mean ± SD (k = 1) ST accuracy of 0.7 mm ± 1 mm and 2.8 mm ± 1.6 mm, respectively, in radial direction, and −1.7 mm ± 1 mm and −2.1 mm ± 1.1 mm, respectively, in longitudinal direction. The largest deviations for the configurations with those detector positions were 2.6 and 5.4 mm, respectively, in the radial direction and −3.5 and −3.8 mm, respectively, in the longitudinal direction. Conclusion: This phantom study demonstrates that ST based on IVD during prostate BT is adequately accurate for clinical use. The ST yields submillimeter accuracy on needle positions as long as the IVD detector is positioned superior to at least one active dwell position in all needles. Locations of the detector inferior to the prostate apex result in decreased ST accuracy while detector locations in the apex region and above are advantageous for clinical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To use quantities measurable during in vivo dosimetry to build unique channel identifiers, that enable detection of brachytherapy errors. Treatment plan of 360 patients with prostate cancer who underwent high-dose-rate brachytherapy (range, 16–25 catheters; mean, 17) were used. A single point virtual dosimeter was placed at multiple positions within the treatment geometry, and the source-dosimeter distance and dwell time were determined for each dwell position in each catheter. These values were compared across all catheters, dwell position by dwell position, simulating a treatment delivery. A catheter was considered uniquely identified if, for a given dwell position, no other catheters had the same measured values. The minimum number of dwell positions needed to identify a specific catheter and the optimal dosimeter location uniquely were determined. The radial (r) and vertical (z) dimensions of the source-dosimeter distance were also examined for their utility in discriminating catheters. Using a virtual dosimeter with no uncertainties, all catheters were identified in 359 of the 360 cases with 9 dwell position measurements. When only the dwell time were measured, all catheters were uniquely identified after 1 dwell position. With a 2-mm spatial accuracy (r,z), all catheters were identified in 94% of the plans. Simultaneous measurement of source-dosimeter distance and dwell time ensured full catheter identification in all plans ranging from 2 to 6 dwell positions. The number of dwell positions needed to uniquely identify all catheters was lower when the distance from the implant center was higher. The most efficient fingerprinting approach involved combining source-dosimeter distance (i.e., source tracking) and dwell time. The further the dosimeter is placed from the center of the implant the better it can uniquely identify catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]