Published October 1, 2008 | Version v1
Journal article

The Observed Variance Between Predicted and Measured Radiation Dose in Breast and Prostate Patients Utilizing an In Vivo Dosimeter

  • 1. Department of Radiation, Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA (United States)
  • 2. Sicel Technologies Inc., Morrisville, NC (United States)
  • 3. Texas Cancer Clinic, San Antonio, TX (United States)
  • 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rex Cancer Center, Raleigh, NC (United States)
  • 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University, Bowman Gray Campus, Winston-Salem, NC (United States)

Description

Purpose: Report the results of using a permanently implantable dosimeter in radiation therapy: determine specific adverse events, degree of migration, and acquire dose measurements during treatment to determine difference between expected and measured dose. Methods and Materials: The Dose Verification System is a wireless, permanently implantable metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor dosimeter using a bidirectional antenna for power and data transfer. The study cohort includes 36 breast (33 patients received two devices) and 29 prostate (21 patients received two devices) cancer patients. A total of 1,783 and 1,749 daily dose measurements were obtained on breast and prostate patients, respectively. The measurements were compared with the planned expected dose. Biweekly computed tomography scans were obtained to evaluate migration and the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria, version 3, was used to evaluate adverse events. Results: Only Grade I/II adverse events of pain and bleeding were noted. There were only four instances of dosimeter migration of >5 mm from known factors. A deviation of ≥7% in cumulative dose was noted in 7 of 36 (19%) for breast cancer patients. In prostate cancer patients, a ≥7% deviation was noted in 6 of 29 (21%) and 8 of 19 (42%) during initial and boost irradiation, respectively. The two patterns of dose deviation were random and systematic. Some causes for these differences could involve organ movement, patient movement, or treatment plan considerations. Conclusions: The Dose Verification System was not associated with significant adverse events or migration. The dosimeter can measure dose in situ on a daily basis. The accuracy and utility of the dose verification system complements current image-guided radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy techniques

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.058

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.058;
PII
S0360-3016(08)02465-6;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
Journal Volume
72
Journal Issue
2
Journal Page Range
p. 597-604
ISSN
0360-3016
CODEN
IOBPD3

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2008 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.