Dosimetry of (125)I and (103)Pd COMS eye plaques for intraocular tumors: report of Task Group 129 by the AAPM and ABS.

Dosimetry of eye plaques for ocular tumors presents unique challenges in brachytherapy. The challenges in accurate dosimetry are in part related to the steep dose gradient in the tumor and critical structures that are within millimeters of radioactive sources. In most clinical applications, calculations of dose distributions around eye plaques assume a homogenous water medium and full scatter conditions. Recent Monte Carlo (MC)-based eye-plaque dosimetry simulations have demonstrated that the perturbation effects of heterogeneous materials in eye plaques, including the gold-alloy backing and Silastic insert, can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. Even additional levels of complexity introduced through the use of gold foil "seed-guides" and custom-designed plaques can be calculated accurately using modern MC techniques. Simulations accounting for the aforementioned complexities indicate dose discrepancies exceeding a factor of ten to selected critical structures compared to conventional dose calculations. Task Group 129 was formed to review the literature; re-examine the current dosimetry calculation formalism; and make recommendations for eye-plaque dosimetry, including evaluation of brachytherapy source dosimetry parameters and heterogeneity correction factors. A literature review identified modern assessments of dose calculations for Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) design plaques, including MC analyses and an intercomparison of treatment planning systems (TPS) detailing differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous plaque calculations using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TG-43U1 brachytherapy dosimetry formalism and MC techniques. This review identified that a commonly used prescription dose of 85 Gy at 5 mm depth in homogeneous medium delivers about 75 Gy and 69 Gy at the same 5 mm depth for specific (125)I and (103)Pd sources, respectively, when accounting for COMS plaque heterogeneities. Thus, the adoption of heterogeneous dose calculation methods in clinical practice would result in dose differences >10% and warrant a careful evaluation of the corresponding changes in prescription doses. Doses to normal ocular structures vary with choice of radionuclide, plaque location, and prescription depth, such that further dosimetric evaluations of the adoption of MC-based dosimetry methods are needed. The AAPM and American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommend that clinical medical physicists should make concurrent estimates of heterogeneity-corrected delivered dose using the information in this report's tables to prepare for brachytherapy TPS that can account for material heterogeneities and for a transition to heterogeneity-corrected prescriptive goals. It is recommended that brachytherapy TPS vendors include material heterogeneity corrections in their systems and take steps to integrate planned plaque localization and image guidance. In the interim, before the availability of commercial MC-based brachytherapy TPS, it is recommended that clinical medical physicists use the line-source approximation in homogeneous water medium and the 2D AAPM TG-43U1 dosimetry formalism and brachytherapy source dosimetry parameter datasets for treatment planning calculations. Furthermore, this report includes quality management program recommendations for eye-plaque brachytherapy.

Comparison of dose calculation methods for brachytherapy of intraocular tumors.

PURPOSE: To investigate dosimetric differences among several clinical treatment planning systems (TPS) and Monte Carlo (MC) codes for brachytherapy of intraocular tumors using 125I or 103Pd plaques, and to evaluate the impact on the prescription dose of the adoption of MC codes and certain versions of a TPS (Plaque Simulator with optional modules). METHODS: Three clinical brachytherapy TPS capable of intraocular brachytherapy treatment planning and two MC codes were compared. The TPS investigated were Pinnacle v8.0dp1, BrachyVision v8.1, and Plaque Simulator v5.3.9, all of which use the AAPM TG-43 formalism in water. The Plaque Simulator software can also handle some correction factors from MC simulations. The MC codes used are MCNP5 v1.40 and BrachyDose/EGSnrc. Using these TPS and MC codes, three types of calculations were performed: homogeneous medium with point sources (for the TPS only, using the 1D TG-43 dose calculation formalism); homogeneous medium with line sources (TPS with 2D TG-43 dose calculation formalism and MC codes); and plaque heterogeneity-corrected line sources (Plaque Simulator with modified 2D TG-43 dose calculation formalism and MC codes). Comparisons were made of doses calculated at points-of-interest on the plaque central-axis and at off-axis points of clinical interest within a standardized model of the right eye. RESULTS: For the homogeneous water medium case, agreement was within approximately 2% for the point- and line-source models when comparing between TPS and between TPS and MC codes, respectively. For the heterogeneous medium case, dose differences (as calculated using the MC codes and Plaque Simulator) differ by up to 37% on the central-axis in comparison to the homogeneous water calculations. A prescription dose of 85 Gy at 5 mm depth based on calculations in a homogeneous medium delivers 76 Gy and 67 Gy for specific 125I and 103Pd sources, respectively, when accounting for COMS-plaque heterogeneities. For off-axis points-of-interest, dose differences approached factors of 7 and 12 at some positions for 125I and 103Pd, respectively. There was good agreement (approximately 3%) among MC codes and Plaque Simulator results when appropriate parameters calculated using MC codes were input into Plaque Simulator. Plaque Simulator and MC users are perhaps at risk of overdosing patients up to 20% if heterogeneity corrections are used and the prescribed dose is not modified appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement within 2% was observed among conventional brachytherapy TPS and MC codes for intraocular brachytherapy dose calculations in a homogeneous water environment. In general, the magnitude of dose errors incurred by ignoring the effect of the plaque backing and Silastic insert (i.e., by using the TG-43 approach) increased with distance from the plaque's central-axis. Considering the presence of material heterogeneities in a typical eye plaque, the best method in this study for dose calculations is a verified MC simulation.

Off-label use of medical products in radiation therapy: summary of the report of AAPM Task Group No. 121.

Medical products (devices, drugs, or biologics) contain information in their labeling regarding the manner in which the manufacturer has determined that the products can be used in a safe and effective manner. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medical products for use for these specific indications which are part of the medical product's labeling. When medical products are used in a manner not specified in the labeling, it is commonly referred to as off-label use. The practice of medicine allows for this off-label use to treat individual patients, but the ethical and legal implications for such unapproved use can be confusing. Although the responsibility and, ultimately, the liability for off-label use often rests with the prescribing physician, medical physicists and others are also responsible for the safe and proper use of the medical products. When these products are used for purposes other than which they were approved, it is important for medical physicists to understand their responsibilities. In the United States, medical products can only be marketed if officially cleared, approved, or licensed by the FDA; they can be used if they are not subject to or specifically exempt from FDA regulations, or if they are being used in research with the appropriate regulatory safeguards. Medical devices are either cleared or approved by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Drugs are approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and biological products such as vaccines or blood are licensed under a biologics license agreement by FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. For the purpose of this report, the process by which the FDA eventually clears, approves, or licenses such products for marketing in the United States will be referred to as approval. This report summarizes the various ways medical products, primarily medical devices, can legally be brought to market in the United States, and includes a discussion of the approval process, along with manufacturers' responsibilities, labeling, marketing and promotion, and off-label use. This is an educational and descriptive report and does not contain prescriptive recommendations. This report addresses the role of the medical physicist in clinical situations involving off-label use. Case studies in radiation therapy are presented. Any mention of commercial products is for identification only; it does not imply recommendations or endorsements of any of the authors or the AAPM. The full report, containing extensive background on off-label use with several appendices, is available on the AAPM website (http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/).