A comparison between tandem and ovoids and interstitial gynecologic template brachytherapy dosimetry using a hypothetical computer model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dose distribution within the clinical target volume between two gynecologic brachytherapy systems---the tandem and ovoids and the Syed-Neblett gynecologic template---using a hypothetical computer model. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Source positions of an intracavitary system (tandem and ovoids) and an interstitial system (GYN template) were digitized into the Nucletron Brachytherapy Planning System. The GYN template is composed of a 13-catheter implant (12 catheters plus a tandem) based on the Syed-Neblett gynecologic template. For the tandem and ovoids, the dwell times of all sources were evenly weighted to produce a pear-shaped isodose distribution. For the GYN template, the dwell times were determined using volume optimization. The prescribed dose was then normalized to point A in the intracavitary system and to a selected isodose line in the interstitial system. The treated volume in the two systems was kept approximately the same, and a cumulative dose-volume histogram of the treated volume was then generated with the Nucletron Brachytherapy Planning System to use for comparison. To evaluate the dose to a hypothetical target, in this case the cervix, a 2-cm-long, 3-cm-diameter cylinder centered along the tandem was digitized as the clinical target volume. The location of this hypothetical cervix was based on the optimal application of the brachytherapy system. A visual comparison of clinical target coverage by the treated volume on three different orthogonal planes through the treated volume was performed. The percentage dose-volume histograms of the target were generated for comparison. Multiple midline points were also placed at 5-mm intervals away from the tandem in the plane of the cervix to simulate the location of potential bladder and rectal dose points. Doses to these normal structures were calculated for comparison.
RESULTS: Although both systems covered the hypothetical cervix adequately, the interstitial system had a better coverage of the region lateral to the cervix. Smaller volumes of the vagina and uterine fundus received the full dose from the interstitial implant. The cumulative dose-volume histograms revealed larger high-dose regions within the treatment volume for the intracavitary system. The volumes receiving > or = 180% of the prescription dose were 31 cc and 17 cc for the intracavitary system and interstitial system, respectively. The isodose lines showed that most of this difference results from the high-dose region around the tandem. The percentage dose-volume histograms showed that a larger percentage of cervix received a higher dose in the intracavitary system. Fifty-two percent of the target volume received 200% or higher of the prescription dose with tandem and ovoids, compared with only 20% with the template system. Analysis of dose points outside of the 100% isodose lines showed a slightly more rapid dose drop-off with the interstitial system compared to the intracavitary system. Point doses at 20, 25, and 30 mm from the tandem in the interstitial system were 100%, 69%, and 51% of prescribed dose, and from the intracavitary system were 101%, 76%, and 58%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our dosimetric analysis revealed a better coverage in the parametrial regions, but underdosage of the central cervical region, for the interstitial system. On the other hand, because of the increased distance of source to dose point, there is a more rapid dose drop-off outside the treated volume with the interstitial system, which has the potential to improve tissue sparing. Based on this analysis, we caution against using a radiotherapy system with a homogeneous central dose distribution when treating cervical cancer with an intact uterus. We recommend differential loading of the implant catheters with the majority of dose delivered from the tandem when using an interstitial GYN template with remote afterloader.