Dosimetric evaluation of the INTRABEAM system for breast intraoperative radiotherapy: A single-institution experience

Organ absorbed doses in the IORT treatment of breast cancer with the INTRABEAM device: a Monte-Carlo study

Purpose: The current prescription and the assessment of the delivered absorbed dose in intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) with the INTRABEAM system rely mainly on depth-dose measurements in water. The accuracy of this approach is limited because tissue heterogeneity is ignored. It is also difficult to accurately determine the dose delivered to the patient experimentally as the steep dose gradient is highly sensitive to geometric errors. Our goal is to determine the dose to the target volume and the organs at risk of a clinical breast cancer patient from treatment with the system.Methods: A homogeneous water-equivalent CT dataset was derived from the preoperative CT scan of a patient by setting all materials in the patient volume as water-equivalent. This homogeneous CT data represents the current assumption of a homogenous patient, while the original CT data is considered the ground truth. An in-house Monte Carlo algorithm was used to simulate the delivered dose in both setups for a prescribed treatment dose of 20 Gy to the surface of the 3.5 cm diameter spherical applicator.Results: The doses received by 2% (D2%) of the target volume for the homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries are 16.26 Gy and 9.33 Gy, respectively. The D2% for the heart are 0.035 Gy and 0.119 Gy for the homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries, respectively. This trend is also observed for the other organs at risk.Conclusions: The assumption of a homogeneous patient overestimates the dose to the target volume and underestimates the doses to the organs at risk.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of manufacturing variations for the INTRABEAM x‐ray source

Introduction

INTRABEAM x‐ray sources (XRSs) have distinct output characteristics due to subtle variations between the ideal and manufactured products. The objective of this study is to intercompare 15 XRSs and to dosimetrically quantify the impact of manufacturing variations on the delivered dose.

Methods and Materials

The normality of the XRS datasets was evaluated with the Shapiro–Wilk test, the accuracy of the calibrated depth–dose curves (DDCs) was validated with ionization chamber measurements, and the shape of each DDC was evaluated using depth–dose ratios (DDRs). For 20 Gy prescribed to the spherical applicator surface, the dose was computed at 5‐mm and 10‐mm depths from the spherical applicator surface for all XRSs.

Results

At 5‐, 10‐, 20‐, and 30‐mm depths from the source, the coefficient of variation (CV) of the XRS output for 40 kVp was 4.4%, 2.8%, 2.0%, and 3.1% and for 50 kVp was 4.2%, 3.8%, 3.8%, and 3.4%, respectively. At a 20‐mm depth from the source, the 40‐kVp energy had a mean output in Gy/Minute = 0.36, standard deviation (SD) = 0.0072, minimum output = 0.34, and maximum output = 0.37 and a 50‐kVp energy had a mean output = 0.56, SD = 0.021, minimum output = 0.52, and maximum output = 0.60. We noted the maximum DRR values of 2.8% and 2.5% for 40 kVp and 50 kVp, respectively. For all XRSs, the maximum dosimetric effect of these variations within a 10‐mm depth of the applicator surface is ≤ 2.5%. The CV increased as depth increased and as applicator size decreased.

Conclusion

The American Association of Physicist in Medicine Task Group‐167 requires that the impurities in radionuclides used for brachytherapy produce ≤ 5.0% dosimetric variations. Because of differences in an XRS output and DDC, we have demonstrated the dosimetric variations within a 10‐mm depth of the applicator surface to be ≤ 2.5%.

Dosimetric evaluation of incorporating the revised V4.0 calibration protocol for breast intraoperative radiotherapy with the INTRABEAM system

In breast‐targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) clinical trials (TARGIT‐B, TARGIT‐E, TARGIT‐US), a single fraction of radiation is delivered to the tumor bed during surgery with 1.5‐ to 5.0‐cm diameter spherical applicators and an INTRABEAM x‐ray source (XRS). This factory‐calibrated XRS is characterized by two depth‐dose curves (DDCs) named "TARGIT" and "V4.0.” Presently, the TARGIT DDC is used to treat patients enrolled in clinical trials; however, the V4.0 DDC is shown to better represent the delivered dose. Therefore, we reevaluate the delivered prescriptions under the TARGIT protocols using the V4.0 DDC. A 20‐Gy dose was prescribed to the surface of the spherical applicator, and the TARGIT DDC was used to calculate the treatment time. For a constant treatment time, the V4.0 DDC was used to recalculate the dosimetry to evaluate differences in dose rate, dose, and equivalent dose in 2‐Gy fractions (EQD2) for an α/β = 3.5 Gy (endpoint of locoregional relapse). At the surface of the tumor bed (i.e., spherical applicator surface), the calculations using the V4.0 DDC predicted increased values for dose rate (43–16%), dose (28.6–23.2 Gy), and EQD2 (95–31%) for the 1.5‐ to 5.0‐cm diameter spherical applicator sizes, respectively. In general, dosimetric differences are greatest for the 1.5‐cm diameter spherical applicator. The results from this study can be interpreted as a reevaluation of dosimetry or the dangers of underdosage, which can occur if the V4.0 DDC is inadvertently used for TARGIT clinical trial patients. Because the INTRABEAM system is used in TARGIT clinical trials, accurate knowledge about absorbed dose is essential for making meaningful comparisons between radiation treatment modalities, and reproducible treatment delivery is imperative. The results of this study shed light on these concerns.