Published in:
Open Access
01-12-2022 | Brachytherapy | Case report
Monte Carlo simulation of tilted contact plaque brachytherapy placement for juxtapapillary retinoblastoma
Authors:
Satoshi Nakamura, Naoya Murakami, Shigenobu Suzuki, Kimiteru Ito, Mihiro Takemori, Hiroki Nakayama, Keita Kaga, Takahito Chiba, Kotaro Iijima, Kana Takahashi, Tomonori Goka, Jun Itami, Hiroyuki Okamoto, Hiroshi Igaki
Published in:
Radiation Oncology
|
Issue 1/2022
Login to get access
Abstract
Background
The 106-Ruthenium contact plaque applicator is utilized for the treatment of intraocular tumor within a thickness of less than 6 mm. If anything obstructs the placement of the plaque applicator, the treatment is generally difficult because the applicator has to be temporarily located just on the opposite side of the retinal tumor. Furthermore, the plaque applicator edge of approximately 1 mm does not contain 106Ru, estimating the delivered radiation dose for eccentric tumor is challenging because the lateral dose profile is inadequately provided by the manufacture’s certification. This study aims to simulate tumor coverage of the tilted applicator placement for treating an infant with juxtapapillary retinoblastoma and to achieve the effective treatment.
Case presentation
We present an infant with retinoblastoma whose tumor involved macular and was invading just temporal side of the optic disc. Additionally, posterior staphyloma was induced by a series of previous treatments, making it more difficult to treat the standard plaque placement. Thus, the applicator type of CCA was intentionally tilted to the eyeball and the distance between the posterior edge of the applicator and the eyeball had to be then equal to or more than 2 mm based on the dose distribution of the applicator calculated using Monte Carlo simulation to minimize damage to surrounding tissues while covering the tumor. It was then comparable to the certification and previous reports. Based on the acquired dose distribution, the optimal placement of the applicator was derived from varying the distance between the applicator’s edge and the eyeball, and the distance was then determined to be 2 mm. In this case, the minimum dose rate in the tumor was 25.5 mGy/min, and the time required to deliver the prescribed dose was 26.2 h. Therefore, the tilted 106Ru plaque applicator placement could deliver the required dose for the treatment. The physical examination revealed no active tumor as a result of the treatment.
Conclusions
Optimizing the placement of the 106Ru plaque applicator, it was possible to guarantee that the prescribed dose will be delivered to the tumor even if the standard placement is not possible for the juxtapapillary tumor.