Personalized treatment planning in eye brachytherapy for ocular melanoma: Dosimetric analysis on ophthalmic structure at risk (72 views)
Phys Med (ISSN: 1120-1797linking), 2020 Aug; 76: 285-293.
Export to BibTeX Export to EndNote
Paper type: Journal Article,
Impact factor: 3.177, 5-year impact factor: 1.712
Url: Not available.
Keywords: Ct-Based Eye-Model, Eye Plaque Brachytherapy, Ocular Melanoma, Ophthalmic Structures-At-Risk, Personalized Treatment Planning, Ru-106,
Affiliations:
*** IBB - CNR ***
University Federico II, Post Graduate School in Medical Physics, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Napoli, Italy.
National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy.
University Hospital Federico II, Unit of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Napoli, Italy.
References:
Not available.
Phys Med (ISSN: 1120-1797linking), 2020 Aug; 76: 285-293.
Export to BibTeX Export to EndNote
Paper type: Journal Article,
Impact factor: 3.177, 5-year impact factor: 1.712
Url: Not available.
Keywords: Ct-Based Eye-Model, Eye Plaque Brachytherapy, Ocular Melanoma, Ophthalmic Structures-At-Risk, Personalized Treatment Planning, Ru-106,
Affiliations:
*** IBB - CNR ***
University Federico II, Post Graduate School in Medical Physics, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Napoli, Italy.
National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Biostructures and Bioimaging, Napoli, Italy.
University Hospital Federico II, Unit of Medical Physics and Radioprotection, Napoli, Italy.
References:
Not available.
Personalized treatment planning in eye brachytherapy for ocular melanoma: Dosimetric analysis on ophthalmic structure at risk
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact on dose distribution to eye organs-at-risk (eOARs) of a computed tomography (CT)-based treatment planning in eye plaque brachytherapy (EPB) treatment. METHODS: We analyzed 19 ocular melanoma patients treated with ruthenium-106 plaques to a total dose of 100 Gy to tumor apex using conventional central-axis-point dose calculation. Treatments were re-planned using the Plaque Simulator (PS) software implementing two different strategies: a personalized CT-eye-model (CT-PS) and a standard-eye-model (SEM-PS) defined by Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study. Dice coefficient and Hausdorff distance evaluated the concordance between eye-bulb-models. Mean doses (D(mean)) to tumor and eOARs were extracted from Dose-Volume-Histograms and Retinal-Dose-Area-Histogram. Differences between planning approaches were tested by Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: In the analyzed cohort, 8 patients (42%) had posterior tumor location, 8 (42%) anterior, and 3 (16%) equatorial. The SEM did not accurately described the real CT eye-bulb geometry (median Hausdorff distance 0.8 mm, range: (0.4-1.3) mm). Significant differences in fovea and macula D(mean) values were found (p = 0.04) between CT-PS and SEM-PS schemes. No significant dosimetric differences were found for tumor and other eOARs. The planning scheme particularly affects the OARs closest to the tumor with a general tendency of SEM-PS to overestimate the doses to the OARs closest to the tumor. CONCLUSION: The dosimetric accuracy achievable with CT-PS EPB treatment planning may help to identify ocular melanoma patients who could benefit the most from a personalized eye dosimetry for an optimal outcome in terms of tumor coverage and eOARs sparing. Further research and larger studies are underway.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact on dose distribution to eye organs-at-risk (eOARs) of a computed tomography (CT)-based treatment planning in eye plaque brachytherapy (EPB) treatment. METHODS: We analyzed 19 ocular melanoma patients treated with ruthenium-106 plaques to a total dose of 100 Gy to tumor apex using conventional central-axis-point dose calculation. Treatments were re-planned using the Plaque Simulator (PS) software implementing two different strategies: a personalized CT-eye-model (CT-PS) and a standard-eye-model (SEM-PS) defined by Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study. Dice coefficient and Hausdorff distance evaluated the concordance between eye-bulb-models. Mean doses (D(mean)) to tumor and eOARs were extracted from Dose-Volume-Histograms and Retinal-Dose-Area-Histogram. Differences between planning approaches were tested by Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: In the analyzed cohort, 8 patients (42%) had posterior tumor location, 8 (42%) anterior, and 3 (16%) equatorial. The SEM did not accurately described the real CT eye-bulb geometry (median Hausdorff distance 0.8 mm, range: (0.4-1.3) mm). Significant differences in fovea and macula D(mean) values were found (p = 0.04) between CT-PS and SEM-PS schemes. No significant dosimetric differences were found for tumor and other eOARs. The planning scheme particularly affects the OARs closest to the tumor with a general tendency of SEM-PS to overestimate the doses to the OARs closest to the tumor. CONCLUSION: The dosimetric accuracy achievable with CT-PS EPB treatment planning may help to identify ocular melanoma patients who could benefit the most from a personalized eye dosimetry for an optimal outcome in terms of tumor coverage and eOARs sparing. Further research and larger studies are underway.
Personalized treatment planning in eye brachytherapy for ocular melanoma: Dosimetric analysis on ophthalmic structure at risk
No results. |
Personalized treatment planning in eye brachytherapy for ocular melanoma: Dosimetric analysis on ophthalmic structure at risk
Other filter: ([btitle,keywords] "Ct-Based Eye-Model" ...
Buonanno F, Conson M, De Almeida Ribeiro C, Oliviero C, Itta F, Liuzzi R, Pacelli R, Cella L, Clemente S
* Local tumor control and treatment related toxicity after plaque brachytherapy for uveal melanoma: A systematic review and a data pooled analysis (55 views)
Radiother Oncol (ISSN: 0167-8140linking, 1879-0887), 2022 Jan; 166: 15-25.
Impact Factor: 6.28
View Export to BibTeX Export to EndNote
* Local tumor control and treatment related toxicity after plaque brachytherapy for uveal melanoma: A systematic review and a data pooled analysis (55 views)
Radiother Oncol (ISSN: 0167-8140linking, 1879-0887), 2022 Jan; 166: 15-25.
Impact Factor: 6.28
View Export to BibTeX Export to EndNote
1 Records (1 excluding Abstracts).
Total impact factor: 6.28 (6.28 excluding Abstracts).
Total 5 year impact factor: 4.502 (4.502 excluding Abstracts).
Total impact factor: 6.28 (6.28 excluding Abstracts).
Total 5 year impact factor: 4.502 (4.502 excluding Abstracts).
72 views. Last view on Monday 16 September 2024, 2:25:54
ibb.cnr.it
