Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation

Background and purpose: Radiopacifiers are introduced to bone cements to provide the appearance of bone in kilovoltage (kV) radiographic images. For higher energy megavoltage (MV) radiotherapy treatment beams, however, these radiopacifiers do not cause a bone-like perturbation of dose. This study th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Scott B. Crowe, Jane Bennett, Marika Lathouras, Craig M. Lancaster, Steven R. Sylvander, Benjamin Chua, Catherine S. Bettington, Charles Y. Lin, Tanya Kairn
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2020-04-01
Series:Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631620300117
id doaj-48dee3e025a8450982e953073ec431fd
record_format Article
spelling doaj-48dee3e025a8450982e953073ec431fd2020-11-25T03:15:13ZengElsevierPhysics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology2405-63162020-04-01141216Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculationScott B. Crowe0Jane Bennett1Marika Lathouras2Craig M. Lancaster3Steven R. Sylvander4Benjamin Chua5Catherine S. Bettington6Charles Y. Lin7Tanya Kairn8Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia; Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia; Herston Biofabrication Institute, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia; Corresponding author.Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, AustraliaCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, AustraliaCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, AustraliaCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, AustraliaCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, AustraliaCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, AustraliaCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, AustraliaCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia; Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, AustraliaBackground and purpose: Radiopacifiers are introduced to bone cements to provide the appearance of bone in kilovoltage (kV) radiographic images. For higher energy megavoltage (MV) radiotherapy treatment beams, however, these radiopacifiers do not cause a bone-like perturbation of dose. This study therefore aimed to determine the impact of the barium-contrasted plastic-based cement materials on radiotherapy dose calculations. Materials and methods: The radiological properties of a physical sample of bone cement were characterised by computed tomography (CT) imaging and transmission measurements. Monte Carlo simulations of percentage depth-dose profiles were performed to determine the possible dose error for MV treatment beams. Dose differences were then investigated for clinical volumetric modulated radiotherapy treatment plans, with and without density overrides applied. Results: Differences of up to 7% were observed at the downstream interface of a 0.6 cm thick bone cement layer, compared to bone. Differences in planning target volume dose-volume metrics varied between −0.5% and 2.0%. Conclusion: Before planning radiotherapy treatments for patients who have undergone cranioplasty, every effort should be made to identify whether a radiopacified bone cement has been implanted. Density overrides should be applied to minimise dose calculation errors, whenever bone cement is used.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631620300117Radiation therapyTreatment planningCranioplastyBone cement
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Scott B. Crowe
Jane Bennett
Marika Lathouras
Craig M. Lancaster
Steven R. Sylvander
Benjamin Chua
Catherine S. Bettington
Charles Y. Lin
Tanya Kairn
spellingShingle Scott B. Crowe
Jane Bennett
Marika Lathouras
Craig M. Lancaster
Steven R. Sylvander
Benjamin Chua
Catherine S. Bettington
Charles Y. Lin
Tanya Kairn
Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Radiation therapy
Treatment planning
Cranioplasty
Bone cement
author_facet Scott B. Crowe
Jane Bennett
Marika Lathouras
Craig M. Lancaster
Steven R. Sylvander
Benjamin Chua
Catherine S. Bettington
Charles Y. Lin
Tanya Kairn
author_sort Scott B. Crowe
title Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_short Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_full Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_fullStr Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_full_unstemmed Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation
title_sort impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation
publisher Elsevier
series Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
issn 2405-6316
publishDate 2020-04-01
description Background and purpose: Radiopacifiers are introduced to bone cements to provide the appearance of bone in kilovoltage (kV) radiographic images. For higher energy megavoltage (MV) radiotherapy treatment beams, however, these radiopacifiers do not cause a bone-like perturbation of dose. This study therefore aimed to determine the impact of the barium-contrasted plastic-based cement materials on radiotherapy dose calculations. Materials and methods: The radiological properties of a physical sample of bone cement were characterised by computed tomography (CT) imaging and transmission measurements. Monte Carlo simulations of percentage depth-dose profiles were performed to determine the possible dose error for MV treatment beams. Dose differences were then investigated for clinical volumetric modulated radiotherapy treatment plans, with and without density overrides applied. Results: Differences of up to 7% were observed at the downstream interface of a 0.6 cm thick bone cement layer, compared to bone. Differences in planning target volume dose-volume metrics varied between −0.5% and 2.0%. Conclusion: Before planning radiotherapy treatments for patients who have undergone cranioplasty, every effort should be made to identify whether a radiopacified bone cement has been implanted. Density overrides should be applied to minimise dose calculation errors, whenever bone cement is used.
topic Radiation therapy
Treatment planning
Cranioplasty
Bone cement
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631620300117
work_keys_str_mv AT scottbcrowe impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT janebennett impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT marikalathouras impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT craigmlancaster impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT stevenrsylvander impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT benjaminchua impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT catherinesbettington impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT charlesylin impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
AT tanyakairn impactofradiopacifiedbonecementonradiotherapydosecalculation
_version_ 1724639881621143552