Dosimetric investigation of 103Pd permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy based on Monte Carlo calculations

TL;DR

This study compares Monte Carlo-based dose calculations with traditional TG-43 methods for 103Pd breast seed implants, revealing significant differences in target and normal tissue doses, advocating for patient-specific advanced dose modeling.

Contribution

It introduces a comprehensive Monte Carlo framework for accurate dose evaluation in breast seed implants, highlighting the limitations of TG-43 and supporting clinical adoption of TG-186 models.

Findings

MCref shows 14.1% lower target D90 than TG43sim

Normal tissue doses are significantly higher with MCref

Doses vary notably between patients and tissue types

Abstract

PURPOSE: Permanent breast seed implant (PBSI) using 103Pd is emerging as an effective adjuvant radiation technique for early-stage breast cancer. However, clinical dose evaluations follow the water-based TG-43 approach with its considerable approximations. Towards clinical adoption of advanced TG-186 model-based dose evaluations, this study presents a comprehensive investigation for PBSI considering both target and normal tissue doses. METHODS: Dose calculations are performed with the free open-source Monte Carlo (MC) code, egs_brachy, using 2 types of virtual patient models: TG43sim (simulated TG-43 conditions: all water with no interseed attenuation) and MCref (heterogeneous tissue modelling from patient CT, interseed attenuation, seeds at implant angle) for 35 patients. Sensitivity of dose metrics to seed orientation and the threshold for glandular/adipose tissue segmentation are assessed. RESULTS: In the target volume, D90 is 14.1% lower with MCref than with TG43sim, on average. Conversely, normal tissue doses are generally higher with MCref than with TG43sim, e.g., by 22% for skin D1cm2, 82% for ribs Dmax, and 71% for heart D1cm3. Discrepancies between MCref and TG43sim doses vary over the patient cohort, as well as with the tissue and metric considered. Doses are sensitive to the glandular/adipose tissue segmentation threshold with differences of a few percent in target D90. Skin doses are sensitive to seed orientation. CONCLUSIONS: TG-43 dose evaluations generally underestimate doses to critical normal organs/tissues while overestimating target doses. There is considerable variation in MCref and TG43sim on a patient-by-patient basis, suggesting that clinical adoption of patient-specific MC dose calculations is motivated. The MCref framework presented herein provides a consistent modelling approach for clinical implementation of advanced TG-186 dose calculations.