Abstract
The main aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of the INTRABEAM ® system in the presence of air gaps between the surface of applicators (APs) and tumor bed. Additionally, the effect of tissue heterogeneities was another focus. Investigating the dosimetric characteristics of the INTRABEAM® system is essential to deliver the required dose to the tumor bed correctly and reduce the delivered dose to the ribs and lung. Choosing the correct AP size and fitting it to the lumpectomy cavity is essential to remove the effect of air gaps and avoid inaccurate dose delivery. Consequently, the Geant4 toolkit was used to simulate the INTRABEAM ® system with spherical APs of various sizes. The wall effect of the ion chamber (IC) PTW 34013 used in the present study was checked. The simulations were validated in comparison with measurements, and then used to calculate any inaccuracies in dose delivery in the presence of 4- and 10-mm air gaps between the surface of the APs and the tumor bed. Also, the doses received due to tissue heterogeneities were characterized. It turned out that measurements and simulations were approximately in agreement (± 2%) for all sizes of APs. The perturbation factor introduced by the IC due to differences in graphite-coated polyethylene and air as compared to the phantom material was approximately equal to one for all AP. The greatest relative dose delivery difference was observed for an AP with a diameter of 1.5 cm, i.e., 44% and 70% in the presence of 4- and 10-mm air gaps, respectively. In contrast, the lowest relative dose delivery difference was observed for an AP with a diameter of 5 cm, i.e., 24% and 42% in the presence of 4- and 10-mm air gaps, respectively. Increasing APs size showed a decrease in relative dose delivery difference due to the presence of air gaps. In addition, the undesired dose received by the ribs turned out to be higher when a treatment site closer to the ribs was assumed. The undesired dose received by the ribs increased as the AP size increased. The lung dose turned out to be decreased due to the shielding effect of the ribs, small lung density, and long separation distance from the AP surface.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agostinelli S et al (2003) GEANT4—a simulation toolkit. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A 506:250–303
Armoogum KS, Parry JM, Souliman SK, Sutton DG, Mackay CD (2007) Functional intercomparison of intraoperative radiotherapy equipment—photon radiosurgery system. Radiat Oncol 2:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717x-2-11
Baghani HR, Hosseini Aghdam SR, Robatjazi M, Mahdavi SR (2019) Monte Carlo-based determination of radiation leakage dose around a dedicated IOERT accelerator. Radiat Environ Biophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-019-00786-1
Beatty J et al (1996) A new miniature X-ray device for interstitial radiosurgery: dosimetry. Med Phys 23:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597791
Bouzid D, Bert J, Dupre PF, Benhalouche S, Pradier O, Boussion N, Visvikis D (2015) Monte-Carlo dosimetry for intraoperative radiotherapy using a low energy x-ray source. Acta Oncol 54:1788–1795. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2015.1016623
Chetty IJ, Rosu M, Kessler ML, Fraass BA, Ten Haken RK, Kong FM, McShan DL (2006) Reporting and analyzing statistical uncertainties in Monte Carlo-based treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:1249–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.039
Chiavassa S, Buge F, Herve C, Delpon G, Rigaud J, Lisbona A, Supiot S (2015) Monte Carlo evaluation of the effect of inhomogeneities on dose calculation for low energy photons intra-operative radiation therapy in pelvic area. Phys Med 31:956–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.07.144
Dinsmore M et al (1996) A new miniature x-ray source for interstitial radiosurgery: device description. Med Phys 23:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597790
Eaton DJ (2012) Quality assurance and independent dosimetry for an intraoperative x-ray device. Med Phys 39:6908–6920. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4761865
Eaton DJ, Duck S (2010) Dosimetry measurements with an intra-operative x-ray device. Phys Med Biol 55:N359–N369. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/12/n02
Ebert MA, Carruthers B (2003) Dosimetric characteristics of a low-kV intra-operative x-ray source: implications for use in a clinical trial for treatment of low-risk breast cancer. Med Phys 30:2424–2431. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1595611
Gholami S, Longo F, Nedaie HA, Berti A, Mousavi M, Meigooni AS (2018) Application of Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation in dose calculations for small radiosurgical fields. Med Dosim 43:214–223
Gonzalez R, Reynolds C (2014) How to Use the INTRABEAM System. In: Keshtgar M, Pigott K, Wenz F (eds) Targeted Intraoperative radiotherapy in oncology. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39821-6_3
Hensley F (2017) Present state and issues in IORT physics. Radiat Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0754-z
Hernandez G et al (2015) Intraoperative Radiation therapy (INTRABEAM) experience at the mastology unit leopoldo aguerrevere clinic. J Cancer Ther 06:932–942. https://doi.org/10.4236/jct.2015.610101
Kalakota K, Small W Jr (2014) Intraoperative radiation therapy techniques and options for breast cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices 11:265–273. https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.2014.882653
Kraus-Tiefenbacher U et al (2004) Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for breast cancer using the Intrabeam system. Tumori J 91:339–345
Moradi F et al (2017) Monte Carlo skin dose simulation in intraoperative radiotherapy of breast cancer using spherical applicators. Phys Med Biol 62:6550–6566. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa7fe6
Muralidhar KR, Rout B, Mallikarjuna A, Poornima A, Murthy P (2014) Commisioning and quality asurances of the intrabeam intra-operative radiotherapy unit. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2:1–7. https://doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.0204.15
Najafi M, Shirazi A, Motevaseli E, Geraily G, Amini P, Tooli LF, Shabeeb D (2019) Melatonin modulates regulation of NOX2 and NOX4 following irradiation in the lung. Curr Clin Pharmacol 14(3):224–231. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574884714666190502151733
Nilsson B, Montelius A, Andreo P (1996) Wall effects in plane-parallel ionization chambers. Phys Med Biol 41:609–623. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/41/4/003
Rivard MJ, Davis SD, DeWerd LA, Rusch TW, Axelrod S (2006) Calculated and measured brachytherapy dosimetry parameters in water for the Xoft axxent x-ray source: an electronic brachytherapy source a. Med Phys 33:4020–4032
Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A (1996) The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/41/1/009
Schneider F, Clausen S, Tholking J, Wenz F, Abo-Madyan Y (2014) A novel approach for superficial intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) using a 50 kV X-ray source: a technical and case report. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15:4502. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4502
Schneider F, Bludau F, Clausen S, Fleckenstein J, Obertacke U, Wenz F (2017) Precision IORT—Image guided intraoperative radiation therapy (igIORT) using online treatment planning including tissue heterogeneity correction. Phys Med 37:82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.017
Sethi A, Chinsky B, Gros S, Diak A, Emami B, Small W Jr (2015) Tissue inhomogeneity corrections in low-kV intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT). Transl Cancer Res 4:182–188
Sethi A, Emami B, Small W Jr, Thomas TO (2018) Intraoperative radiotherapy with INTRABEAM: technical and dosimetric considerations. Front Oncol 8:74–74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00074
Shahzadeh S, Gholami S, Aghamiri SMR, Mahani H, Nabavi M, Kalantari F (2018) Evaluation of normal lung tissue complication probability in gated and conventional radiotherapy using the 4D XCAT digital phantom. Comput Biol Med 97:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.04.007
Torres del Río J, Forastero C, Tornero-López AM, López JJ, Guirado D, Perez-Calatayud J, Lallena AM (2018) Air density dependence of the soft X-ray PTW 34013 ionization chamber. Physica Medica 46:109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.01.020
Vaidya JS, Baum M, Tobias JS, Morgan S, D'Souza D (2002) The novel technique of delivering targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (Targit) for early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 28:447–454
Vaidya JS et al (2010) Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 376:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60837-9
Vaidya JS et al (2011) Long-term results of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (Targit) boost during breast-conserving surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:1091–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.1996
Watson PGF, Popovic M, Seuntjens J (2017) Determination of absorbed dose to water from a miniature kilovoltage x-ray source using a parallel-plate ionization chamber. Phys Med Biol 63:015016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa9560
Watson PGF, Bekerat H, Papaconstadopoulos P, Davis S, Seuntjens J (2018) An investigation into the INTRABEAM miniature x-ray source dosimetry using ionization chamber and radiochromic film measurements. Med Phys. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13059
White DR, Booz J, Griffith RV, Spokas JJ, Wilson IJ (1989) Report 44. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os23.1.Report44
Xiao Z, Ouyang B, Wang Z, Huang B, Wen B (2015) The dosimetric characteristics and potential limitation in clinical application of a low energy photon intra-operative radiotherapy system. Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol 04:184–195. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2015.42023
Yang Y, Wang B (2018) PTH1R-casr cross talk: new treatment options for breast cancer osteolytic bone metastases. Int J Endocrinol 2018:7120979. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7120979
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by Radiation Oncology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services with grant number: 98-01-207-38809.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no potential conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants and/or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tegaw, E.M., Gholami, S., Omyan, G. et al. Dosimetric characteristics of the INTRABEAM ® system with spherical applicators in the presence of air gaps and tissue heterogeneities. Radiat Environ Biophys 59, 295–306 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-020-00835-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-020-00835-0