Adaptive error detection for HDR/PDR brachytherapy: Guidance for decision making during real‐time in vivo point dosimetry. Issue 5 (14th April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kertzscher, Gustavo; Andersen, Claus E.; Tanderup, Kari
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 41:Issue 5(2014)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2014-04-14
• Subjects: Therapeutic applications, including brachytherapy -- Dosimetry/exposure assessment; brachytherapy -- decision making -- dosimetry -- error detection; brachytherapy -- in vivo dosimetry -- error detection; Radiation therapy -- Scintigraphy; Dosimetry -- Error analysis -- Error correction -- Ozone -- Real time information delivery -- Cancer -- Medical imaging -- Computed tomography -- Magnetic resonance imaging -- Brachytherapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4870438
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: : This study presents an adaptive error detection algorithm (AEDA) for real‐time in vivo point dosimetry during high dose rate (HDR) or pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy (BT) where the error identification, in contrast to existing approaches, does not depend on an a priori reconstruction of the dosimeter position. Instead, the treatment is judged based on dose rate comparisons between measurements and calculations of the most viable dosimeter position provided by the AEDA in a data driven approach. As a result, the AEDA compensates for false error cases related to systematic effects of the dosimeter position reconstruction. Given its nearly exclusive dependence on stable dosimeter positioning, the AEDA allows for a substantially simplified and time efficient real‐time in vivo BT dosimetry implementation. Methods: : In the event of a measured potential treatment error, the AEDA proposes the most viable dosimeter position out of alternatives to the original reconstruction by means of a data driven matching procedure between dose rate distributions. If measured dose rates do not differ significantly from the most viable alternative, the initial error indication may be attributed to a mispositioned or misreconstructed dosimeter (false error). However, if the error declaration persists, no viable dosimeter position can be found to explain the error, hence the discrepancy is more likely to originate from a misplaced or misreconstructed source applicator or from erroneously connected source guide tubes (true error). Results: : The AEDA applied on two in vivo dosimetry implementations for pulsed dose rate BT demonstrated that the AEDA correctly described effects responsible for initial error indications. The AEDA was able to correctly identify the major part of all permutations of simulated guide tube swap errors and simulated shifts of individual needles from the original reconstruction. Unidentified errors corresponded to scenarios where the dosimeter position was sufficiently symmetric with respect to error and no‐error source position constellations. The AEDA was able to correctly identify all false errors represented by mispositioned dosimeters contrary to an error detection algorithm relying on the original reconstruction. Conclusions: : The study demonstrates that the AEDA error identification during HDR/PDR BT relies on a stable dosimeter position rather than on an accurate dosimeter reconstruction, and the AEDA's capacity to distinguish between true and false error scenarios. The study further shows that the AEDA can offer guidance in decision making in the event of potential errors detected with real‐time in vivo point dosimetry.