title: An analysis of the effect of ovoid shields in a selectron-LDR cervical applicator on dose distributions in rectum and bladder.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  A disadvantage of ovoid shields in a Fletcher-type applicator is that these shields cause artifacts on postimplant CT images. CT images, however, make it possible to calculate the dose distribution in the rectum and the bladder. To be able to estimate the possible advantage of having CT information over the use of ovoid shields without having CT information, we investigated the influence of shielding segments in a Fletcher-type Selectron-LDR applicator on the dose distribution in rectum and bladder.
  
  
  METHODS
  Contours of rectum and bladder were delineated on transaxial CT slices of 15 unshielded applications. Of the volumes contained within these structures dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were calculated. In a similar way, DVHs of simulated shielded applications were calculated. The reduction, due to shielding, of the dose to the 2 cm3 (D2) and 5 cm3 (D5) volume of the cumulative DVHs of rectum and bladder, were determined. An isodose pattern in the sagittal plane through the center of each applicator was plotted to compare the location of the shielded area with the location of maximum dose in rectum and bladder in the unshielded situation. In two cases local dose reductions to the rectal wall were determined by calculating the dose in points at 10-mm intervals on the rectal contours.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For the rectum, the reduction of D2 ranged from 0 to 11.1%, with an average of 5.0%; the reduction of D5 ranged from 2.3 to 12.1%, with an average of 6.4%. The reduction of D2 and D5 for the bladder ranged from 0 to 11.9% and from 0 to 11.6%, with average values of 2.2 and 2.6%, respectively. In 8 out of 15 cases the rectal maximum dose was located inferior to the shielded area. In all cases except one the bladder maximum dose was located superior to the shielded area. Local dose reductions on the rectal wall can be as high as 30% or more in an optimally shielded area.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Reductions of D2 and D5 to rectum and bladder due to shielding are rather small, because the shielded area does usually not coincide with the high dose region and even if it does, the shielded area is too small to result in large reductions of these values. Because local dose reductions vary largely, one should proceed with caution when calculating the dose in just one rectal or bladder reference point. Because large overall dose reductions cannot be achieved with shielding, it is safe to use an unshielded applicator when post implant CT images are used to realize optimized dose distributions.
authors.affiliation: The Netherlands Cancer Institute (Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Huis), Amsterdam. STEGGER@NKI.NL
authors.forename: M J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Steggerda
authors.forename: L M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Moonen
authors.forename: E M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Damen
authors.forename: J V
authors.initials: JV
authors.lastname: Lebesque
mesh_terms: D016477:Artifacts; D001918:Brachytherapy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D011835:Radiation Protection / Q000295:instrumentation*; D011859:Radiography; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D012007:Rectum / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D001743:Urinary Bladder / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*