We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until December 6, 2024. New submissions or changes to existing items will not be allowed during this period. All content already published will remain publicly available for searching and downloading. Updates will be posted in the Website Upgrade 2024 FAQ in the sidebar Help menu. Reach out to escholarship@umassmed.edu with any questions.
Dosimetric impact of the AeroForm tissue expander in postmastectomy radiation therapy: an ex vivo analysis
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Radiation OncologyDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2015-02-01Keywords
Breast NeoplasmsFemale
Film Dosimetry
Humans
Mammaplasty
Mastectomy
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
*Tissue Expansion Devices
Neoplasms
Oncology
Radiology
Therapeutics
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the AeroForm (AirXpanders Inc, Palo Alto, CA) tissue expander on the dose distribution in a phantom from a simulated postmastectomy radiation treatment for breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Experiments were conducted to determine the effect on the dose distribution with the metallic reservoir irradiated independently and with the entire AeroForm tissue expander placed on a RANDO phantom (The Phantom Laboratory, Salem, NY). The metallic reservoir was irradiated on a block of solid water with film at various depths ranging from 0 to 8.2 cm from the surface. The intact 400 cc AeroForm was inflated to full capacity and irradiated while positioned on a RANDO phantom, with 12 optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) placed at clinically relevant expander-tissue interface points. RESULTS: Film dosimetry with the reservoir perpendicular to film reveals 40% transmission at a depth of 0.7 cm, which increases to 60% at a depth of 8.2 cm. In the parallel position, the results vary depending on which area under the reservoir is examined, indicating that the reservoir is not a uniformly dense object. Testing of the intact expander on the phantom revealed that the average percent difference (measured vs expected dose) was 2.7%, sigma = 6.2% with heterogeneity correction and 3.7%, sigma = 2.4% without heterogeneity correction. The only position where the OSLD readings were consistently higher than the calculated dose by > 5% was at position 1, just deep to the canister at the expander-phantom interface. At this position, the readings varied from 5.2% to 14.5%, regardless of heterogeneity correction. CONCLUSIONS: Film dosimetry demonstrated beam attenuation in the shadow of the metallic reservoir in the expander. This decrease in dose was not reproduced on the intact expander on the phantom designed to replicate a clinical setup. Inc.Source
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jan-Feb;5(1):e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2014.04.001. Link to article on publisher's site.DOI
10.1016/j.prro.2014.04.001Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47964PubMed ID
25413421Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.prro.2014.04.001