The observed variance between predicted and measured radiation dose in breast and prostate patients utilizing an in vivo dosimeter.

Sicel Technologies Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA.
International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics (Impact Factor: 4.52). 11/2008; 72(2):597-604. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.058
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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 > or =7% in cumulative dose was noted in 7 of 36 (19%) for breast cancer patients. In prostate cancer patients, a > or =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.
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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The past decade has seen an explosion in our understanding of cancer biology and with it many new potential disease targets. Nonetheless, our ability to translate these advances into therapies is poor, with a failure rate approaching 90%. Much discussion has been devoted to this so-called 'Valley of Death' in anticancer drug development, but the problem persists. Could we have overlooked some straightforward explanations to this highly complex problem? Important aspects of tumor physiology, drug pharmacokinetics, preclinical models, drug delivery, and clinical translation are not often emphasized, but could be crucial. This perspective summarizes current views on the problem and suggests feasible alternatives.
    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 03/2012; 33(4):173-80. · 9.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For dosimetric measurements using an implantable optical fiber probe with GaN (Gallium Nitride) scintillator as radioluminescence (RL) transducer, a bi-channel method is proposed to reject the background contribution of the irradiated fiber segment. It is based on spectral differences between the narrow-band light emission from GaN and the large-band background from the irradiated optical fiber. Experimental validation of this method using 6 MV photon beam has shown that the remaining background contribution after subtraction is below 1.2% for square field sizes ranging from 3 cm to 20 cm. Furthermore, a compensation method for the over-response of GaN is also proposed, since GaN is not tissue equivalent. The over-response factor of GaN exhibits a linear increase with square field aperture and depends on depth from phantom surface. This behaviour is modelled to allow compensation in specific conditions. The proposed method has been evaluated and has shown a maximum deviation of 3% for a 6 MV photon beam and 1% for an 18 MV photon beam at a depth beyond the build-up region.
    Physica Medica 01/2013; · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Image-guided dose-escalated radiotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer. Although many published methods are available that account for prostate motion during delivery, evidence demonstrating that the planned dose is actually delivered on a daily basis is lacking. We report our initial clinical experience using implantable dosimeters to quantify and adjust the dose received during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). A total of 20 patients undergoing IMRT with cone-beam computed tomography (CT) image guidance for prostate cancer had the dose verification system with radiopaque metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters implanted before treatment planning. All patients underwent planning with CT simulation in the supine position with custom immobilization, and the implanted dosimeters were located in the IMRT plans. The predicted dose for each dosimeter was defined and compared with the wireless readings before and after each treatment session. Investigations by physicians and medical physicists were initiated for two or more discrepancies >6% for any five consecutive fractions or for any discrepancy ≥10%. Using implanted in vivo dosimeters, dose measurements consistently >6% greater than the predicted values were observed during treatment for 3 of 20 prostate cancer patients who received IMRT with daily image guidance. A review of the daily cone-beam CT images revealed acceptable alignment of the prostate target volumes and implanted dosimeters but identified significant anatomic changes within the treated region. Repeat CT simulation and RT planning was performed, with resolution of the dose discrepancies in all 3 cases with the adoption of a new IMRT plan. Our report illustrates the potential effect of implanted in vivo dosimetry for prostate IMRT and emphasizes the importance of careful planning and delivery with attention to systematic shifts or anatomic changes that could alter the dose distributions.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 07/2012; 83(3):e371-6. · 4.59 Impact Factor


Available from