Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak ( for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 13, Number 6, 2008

Dosimetric verification of the dose calculation algorithms in real time prostate brachytherapy



BACKGROUND: During real time prostate brachytherapy different calculation algorithms can be used which gives the opportunity to modulate the dwell times and positions of the source and consequently the dose distribution and values of therapeutic indices [1].
AIM: The aim of this study was the dosimetric verifi cation (in-phantom) of three optimization algorithms for dose calculation during real-time prostate brachytherapy.
MATERIALS/METHODS: Three optimization algorithm were evaluated: geometric optimization (GO), inverse optimization (IO) and blind inverse optimization (BIO). Then treatment plans for the tissueequivalent phantom were prepared. For each plan the same CTV, organs at risk (OARs: urethra, rectum), number of needles and geometry of implant were used.
RESULTS: Measured mean doses and their standard deviations for GO, IO and BIO were respectively: 11.13 Gy and 0.01 Gy, 15.71 Gy and 0.01 Gy, 14.74 Gy and 0.02 Gy for the urethra and 10.11 Gy and 0.01 Gy, 8.97 Gy and 0.01 Gy, 8.70 Gy and 0.01 Gy for the rectum. Comparison between doses measured by semiconductor detectors and calculated doses revealed differences in the range from 0.10 Gy between doses compared in the urethra for IO and BIO even to 2.46 Gy for GO for the same analyzed organ. For the rectum these differences were between 0.32 and 0.66 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative comparative analysis performed for a phantom study for 3D-CBRT prostate treatment proved the correctness of verifi ed optimization algorithms implemented in Oncentra Prostate vs. 3.0.9.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2008; 13(6) : 275-279


« back


Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.