Dosimetric effects near implanted vascular access ports: an examination of external photon beam calculation.
Vascular access ports are used widely in the administering of drugs for radiation oncology patients. Their dosimetric effect on radiation therapy delivery in photon beams has not been rigorously established. In this work the effects on external beam fields when any of a variety of vascular access ports is included in the path of a high energy beam are studied. This medical physics study specifically identifies side-scatter and back-scatter consequences as well as attenuation effects. The study was divided into two parts: Firstly, a total of 18 ports underwent extended HU range CT scanning followed by 3-D computer treatment planning, where independent homogeneity and heterogeneity plans were created for photon beams of energy 6 MV and 18 MV using a Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) algorithm. Dose points were analyzed at locations all around each device. A total of 1,440 points were reviewed in this section of the study. Secondly, a mock-up of the largest vascular access port was created in the treatment planning workspace for further investigation with alternative treatment planning algorithms. Plans were generated identically to the above and compared to the results of dose computation between the Pencil Beam Convolution algorithm, the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), and the EGSnrc Monte Carlo algorithm with user code DOSRZnrc (MC). A total of 300 points were reviewed in this part of the study. It was conclusive that ports with more bulky construction and those with partial metal composition create the largest changes. Similar effects are seen for similar port configurations. Considerable differences between the PBC and AAA in comparison to MC are noted and discussed. By thorough examination of planning system results, the presented vascular access ports may now be ranked according to the greatest amount of change exhibited within a treatment planning system. Effects of backscatter, lateral scatter and attenuation are up to 5.0%, 3.4% and 16.8% for 6 MV and 7.0%, 7.7% and 7.2% for 18 MV respectively.
Gossman
Michael S
MS
Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Ashland, Kentucky, 41101, USA.
Seuntjens
Jan P
JP
McGill University, Montreal General Hospital, Medical Physics Unit, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada.
Serban
Monica F
MF
Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, Radiation Oncology Department, Montreal, QC, H1T 2M4, Canada.
Christian
Kelly J
KJ
Bard Access Systems, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, 84116, USA.
Lawson
Raymond C
RC
Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Ashland, Kentucky, 41101, USA.
Robertson
Mary A
MA
Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Ashland, Kentucky, 41101, USA.
Lopez
Jeffrey P
JP
Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Ashland, Kentucky, 41101, USA.
Justice
Terry E
TE
Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Ashland, Kentucky, 41101, USA.
D002408:Catheters, Indwelling; D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D006801:Humans; D017785:Photons; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Laryngoscope. 1991 Jun;101(6 Pt 2 Suppl 54):1-24
2041453
Med Phys. 1999 Sep;26(9):1847-70
10505874
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2001 Winter;2(1):21-31
11674835
Br J Radiol. 1984 Jul;57(679):603-8
6733406
Med Phys. 2003 Jun;30(6):1162-82
12852541
Phys Med Biol. 2006 Mar 21;51(6):1421-38
16510953
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007 Jan-Feb;31(1):66-71
17259835
J Pediatr Surg. 2006 Sep;41(9):1582-7
16952595
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990 Feb;18(2):463-7
2303371
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1984 Jul-Aug;8(4):399-406
6431130
Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1970;16:260-6
4989301
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1987 Dec;13(12):1943-7
3679935
Oncol Nurs Forum. 1990 Nov-Dec;17(6):891-6
2263515
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2001 Jun;52(3):153-64
11436410
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973 Apr;136(4):602-6
4632149
Med Dosim. 2003 Winter;28(4):229-33
14684187
Med Phys. 1991 Jul-Aug;18(4):719-23
1921876
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Apr 21;50(8):1767-90
15815095
Phys Med Biol. 2003 Jun 7;48(11):1591-603
12817940