Dosimetric comparison of circular Eye Physics and Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study plaques to treat uveal melanoma

Mary K. Dean, Matthew Thomas Studenski, Manuel A. Paez-Escamilla, Scott D. Walter, Deukwoo Kwon, Arnold Markoe, J. William Harbour, Stuart E. Samuels

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: We sought to formally compare Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) and similar-shaped (circular) eye physics (EP) plaques dosimetrically by examining both tumor coverage and critical structure doses. Methods and materials: The plans of patients with uveal melanoma treated consecutively with eye plaque brachytherapy at a single institution from January 2016 to December 2017 were reviewed. Both a COMS plan and an EP plan using plaques of the same shape were generated for each patient using the Isoaid Plaque Simulator software such that >90% of the tumor + 2 mm margin received 85 Gy over 72 hours from iodine-125 sources. Dose statistics were recorded and analyzed using standard statistical methods. Results: Plans from a total of 62 patients were analyzed. The mean tumor volume was 0.46 cm 3 (range: 0.02-2.02), and tumors were located on average 5.89 mm (range: 0-15.0) from the macula and 6.25 mm (range: 0-16.0) from the optic disc. All plans met the treatment planning criteria for tumor coverage and were optimized to reduce dose to the adjacent organs at risk. There were no significant differences in the mean doses to the fovea (mean difference [MD] = −0.87 Gy; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −4.90 to 3.16; p = 0.80), macula (MD = −1.02 Gy; 95% CI: −4.15 to 2.11; p = 0.65), or optic disc (MD = 1.07 Gy; 95% CI: −0.77 to 2.91; p = 0.34) between the COMS and circular EP plaques. Conclusions: Overall, neither the COMS plaques nor the circular EP plaques provided consistently superior dosimetry for the treatment of uveal melanoma. The choice of plaque may be based on other considerations such as cost and surgeon preference.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBrachytherapy
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Physics
Melanoma
Optic Disk
Confidence Intervals
Neoplasms
Organs at Risk
Uveal melanoma
Brachytherapy
Tumor Burden
Iodine
Software
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • COMS
  • Eye Physics
  • Plaque brachytherapy
  • Uveal melanoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Dosimetric comparison of circular Eye Physics and Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study plaques to treat uveal melanoma. / Dean, Mary K.; Studenski, Matthew Thomas; Paez-Escamilla, Manuel A.; Walter, Scott D.; Kwon, Deukwoo; Markoe, Arnold; William Harbour, J.; Samuels, Stuart E.

In: Brachytherapy, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e141ec96497249a4b565c21f2505043b,
title = "Dosimetric comparison of circular Eye Physics and Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study plaques to treat uveal melanoma",
abstract = "Purpose: We sought to formally compare Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) and similar-shaped (circular) eye physics (EP) plaques dosimetrically by examining both tumor coverage and critical structure doses. Methods and materials: The plans of patients with uveal melanoma treated consecutively with eye plaque brachytherapy at a single institution from January 2016 to December 2017 were reviewed. Both a COMS plan and an EP plan using plaques of the same shape were generated for each patient using the Isoaid Plaque Simulator software such that >90{\%} of the tumor + 2 mm margin received 85 Gy over 72 hours from iodine-125 sources. Dose statistics were recorded and analyzed using standard statistical methods. Results: Plans from a total of 62 patients were analyzed. The mean tumor volume was 0.46 cm 3 (range: 0.02-2.02), and tumors were located on average 5.89 mm (range: 0-15.0) from the macula and 6.25 mm (range: 0-16.0) from the optic disc. All plans met the treatment planning criteria for tumor coverage and were optimized to reduce dose to the adjacent organs at risk. There were no significant differences in the mean doses to the fovea (mean difference [MD] = −0.87 Gy; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: −4.90 to 3.16; p = 0.80), macula (MD = −1.02 Gy; 95{\%} CI: −4.15 to 2.11; p = 0.65), or optic disc (MD = 1.07 Gy; 95{\%} CI: −0.77 to 2.91; p = 0.34) between the COMS and circular EP plaques. Conclusions: Overall, neither the COMS plaques nor the circular EP plaques provided consistently superior dosimetry for the treatment of uveal melanoma. The choice of plaque may be based on other considerations such as cost and surgeon preference.",
keywords = "COMS, Eye Physics, Plaque brachytherapy, Uveal melanoma",
author = "Dean, {Mary K.} and Studenski, {Matthew Thomas} and Paez-Escamilla, {Manuel A.} and Walter, {Scott D.} and Deukwoo Kwon and Arnold Markoe and {William Harbour}, J. and Samuels, {Stuart E.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.brachy.2019.01.005",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Brachytherapy",
issn = "1538-4721",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dosimetric comparison of circular Eye Physics and Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study plaques to treat uveal melanoma

AU - Dean, Mary K.

AU - Studenski, Matthew Thomas

AU - Paez-Escamilla, Manuel A.

AU - Walter, Scott D.

AU - Kwon, Deukwoo

AU - Markoe, Arnold

AU - William Harbour, J.

AU - Samuels, Stuart E.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Purpose: We sought to formally compare Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) and similar-shaped (circular) eye physics (EP) plaques dosimetrically by examining both tumor coverage and critical structure doses. Methods and materials: The plans of patients with uveal melanoma treated consecutively with eye plaque brachytherapy at a single institution from January 2016 to December 2017 were reviewed. Both a COMS plan and an EP plan using plaques of the same shape were generated for each patient using the Isoaid Plaque Simulator software such that >90% of the tumor + 2 mm margin received 85 Gy over 72 hours from iodine-125 sources. Dose statistics were recorded and analyzed using standard statistical methods. Results: Plans from a total of 62 patients were analyzed. The mean tumor volume was 0.46 cm 3 (range: 0.02-2.02), and tumors were located on average 5.89 mm (range: 0-15.0) from the macula and 6.25 mm (range: 0-16.0) from the optic disc. All plans met the treatment planning criteria for tumor coverage and were optimized to reduce dose to the adjacent organs at risk. There were no significant differences in the mean doses to the fovea (mean difference [MD] = −0.87 Gy; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −4.90 to 3.16; p = 0.80), macula (MD = −1.02 Gy; 95% CI: −4.15 to 2.11; p = 0.65), or optic disc (MD = 1.07 Gy; 95% CI: −0.77 to 2.91; p = 0.34) between the COMS and circular EP plaques. Conclusions: Overall, neither the COMS plaques nor the circular EP plaques provided consistently superior dosimetry for the treatment of uveal melanoma. The choice of plaque may be based on other considerations such as cost and surgeon preference.

AB - Purpose: We sought to formally compare Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) and similar-shaped (circular) eye physics (EP) plaques dosimetrically by examining both tumor coverage and critical structure doses. Methods and materials: The plans of patients with uveal melanoma treated consecutively with eye plaque brachytherapy at a single institution from January 2016 to December 2017 were reviewed. Both a COMS plan and an EP plan using plaques of the same shape were generated for each patient using the Isoaid Plaque Simulator software such that >90% of the tumor + 2 mm margin received 85 Gy over 72 hours from iodine-125 sources. Dose statistics were recorded and analyzed using standard statistical methods. Results: Plans from a total of 62 patients were analyzed. The mean tumor volume was 0.46 cm 3 (range: 0.02-2.02), and tumors were located on average 5.89 mm (range: 0-15.0) from the macula and 6.25 mm (range: 0-16.0) from the optic disc. All plans met the treatment planning criteria for tumor coverage and were optimized to reduce dose to the adjacent organs at risk. There were no significant differences in the mean doses to the fovea (mean difference [MD] = −0.87 Gy; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −4.90 to 3.16; p = 0.80), macula (MD = −1.02 Gy; 95% CI: −4.15 to 2.11; p = 0.65), or optic disc (MD = 1.07 Gy; 95% CI: −0.77 to 2.91; p = 0.34) between the COMS and circular EP plaques. Conclusions: Overall, neither the COMS plaques nor the circular EP plaques provided consistently superior dosimetry for the treatment of uveal melanoma. The choice of plaque may be based on other considerations such as cost and surgeon preference.

KW - COMS

KW - Eye Physics

KW - Plaque brachytherapy

KW - Uveal melanoma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061730100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061730100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.brachy.2019.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.brachy.2019.01.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 30797699

AN - SCOPUS:85061730100

JO - Brachytherapy

JF - Brachytherapy

SN - 1538-4721

ER -