A method for verification of treatment delivery in HDR prostate brachytherapy using a flat panel detector for both imaging and source tracking

Authors

  • Smith Ryan L.,

    1. Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia and School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Haworth Annette,

    1. School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia and Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Panettieri Vanessa,

    1. Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Millar Jeremy L.,

    1. Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia and School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Franich Rick D.

    1. Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia and School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Purpose:

Verification of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatment delivery is an important step, but is generally difficult to achieve. A technique is required to monitor the treatment as it is delivered, allowing comparison with the treatment plan and error detection. In this work, we demonstrate a method for monitoring the treatment as it is delivered and directly comparing the delivered treatment with the treatment plan in the clinical workspace. This treatment verification system is based on a flat panel detector (FPD) used for both pre-treatment imaging and source tracking.

Methods:

A phantom study was conducted to establish the resolution and precision of the system. A pretreatment radiograph of a phantom containing brachytherapy catheters is acquired and registration between the measurement and treatment planning system (TPS) is performed using implanted fiducial markers. The measured catheter paths immediately prior to treatment were then compared with the plan. During treatment delivery, the position of the 192Ir source is determined at each dwell position by measuring the exit radiation with the FPD and directly compared to the planned source dwell positions.

Results:

The registration between the two corresponding sets of fiducial markers in the TPS and radiograph yielded a registration error (residual) of 1.0 mm. The measured catheter paths agreed with the planned catheter paths on average to within 0.5 mm. The source positions measured with the FPD matched the planned source positions for all dwells on average within 0.6 mm (s.d. 0.3, min. 0.1, max. 1.4 mm).

Conclusions:

We have demonstrated a method for directly comparing the treatment plan with the delivered treatment that can be easily implemented in the clinical workspace. Pretreatment imaging was performed, enabling visualization of the implant before treatment delivery and identification of possible catheter displacement. Treatment delivery verification was performed by measuring the source position as each dwell was delivered. This approach using a FPD for imaging and source tracking provides a noninvasive method of acquiring extensive information for verification in HDR prostate brachytherapy.

Ancillary