High‐dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy pretreatment dwell position verification using a transparent applicator. (30th June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Otani, Yuki; Sumida, Iori; Nose, Takayuki; Shimamoto, Shigetoshi; Okubo, Hirofumi; Ogawa, Kazuhiko
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 5(2018)
• Page Start: 428
• Page End: 434
• Publication Date: 2018-06-30
• Subjects: 3D printing -- brachytherapy -- transparent applicator -- verification; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12405
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The major errors in HDR brachytherapy are related to treatment distance, almost all of which are caused by incorrect applicator information. The aim of this study is to propose a quick pretreatment verification method to evaluate channel length and dwell position with a transparent applicator, which, in addition, is suitable as an education tool to assist in the understanding of the applicator structure. Methods: A transparent applicator model was fabricated using a three‐dimensional printer and transparent resin. Its aim is to be a replica of a real gynecological applicator. The pretreatment verification is performed by observing the planned dwell positions of a check cable inside a transparent applicator. A digital camera acquired images and the dwell positions of the radioactive source and check cable were evaluated by comparing them with respect to the theoretical dwell positions marked by the proper x‐ray marker. The potential effectiveness of verification using a transparent applicator was also evaluated using brachytherapy events reported in the literature. Results: The transparent applicator closely resembles the real applicator in shape and had an error of less than 0.2 mm. The average dwell position displacement between the radioactive source and check cable was 0.4 mm. The analysis of brachytherapy events showed that channel‐length, dwell‐position, and step‐size errors made up 50% of all events, but affected 64% of all patients. Conclusions: The transparent applicator model enables a noninvasive, repeatable verification of the channel length and dwell positions to be performed before treatment. This verification has the potential to help prevent common errors in treatment delivery. In addition, the transparent applicator model can be used as a teaching tool to help clinicians understand the operation of the applicator, lowering the risk of events.