PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the results of high-dose rate (HDR) and medium-dose rate (MDR) intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix on the basis of a prospective study and to determine the dose rate conversion factor (DRCF) from low-dose rate (LDR) to MDR via HDR, because a DRCF of 0.54 from LDR to HDR has been widely accepted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 1991 and July 1999, 104 patients were entered into this trial to compare results between HDR (n=54) and MDR (n=50). Three patients were excluded from this study, leaving 54 HDR patients and 47 MDR patients eligible. Method and dose of external beam radiotherapy were the same for both groups. For HDR intracavitary brachytherapy, point A dose was adjusted to 32 Gy/4 fractions for stages I and II, to 30 Gy/4 fractions for stage III, and to 22.5 Gy/3 fractions for stage IV. The corresponding values for MDR were 35.6 Gy/4 fractions, 34 Gy/4 fractions, and 25.5 Gy/3 fractions. The average dose rate at point A was 30 Gy/hour (9.0-65.2) for HDR and 1.7 Gy/hour (1.3-2.2) for MDR. We assumed a DRCF of 0.9 from MDR to HDR. RESULTS: The 3-year cause-specific survival rates for HDR were 85%, 83%, 75%, and 0% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The corresponding figures for MDR were 100%, 82%, 58%, and 40%. Six of the HDR patients (11%) and 2 of the MDR patients (4%) developed Kottmeier's grade 2 or 3 late complications. A DRCF of 0.6 from LDR to MDR could be derived from a DRCF of 0.9 from MDR to HDR and one of 0.54 from LDR to HDR. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in cause-specific survival and incidence of late complications between HDR and MDR. A DRCF of 0.6 from LDR to MDR could be determined. However, because the results of this trial were preliminary, a further study is needed.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the results of high-dose rate (HDR) and medium-dose rate (MDR) intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix on the basis of a prospective study and to determine the dose rate conversion factor (DRCF) from low-dose rate (LDR) to MDR via HDR, because a DRCF of 0.54 from LDR to HDR has been widely accepted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 1991 and July 1999, 104 patients were entered into this trial to compare results between HDR (n=54) and MDR (n=50). Three patients were excluded from this study, leaving 54 HDR patients and 47 MDR patients eligible. Method and dose of external beam radiotherapy were the same for both groups. For HDR intracavitary brachytherapy, point A dose was adjusted to 32 Gy/4 fractions for stages I and II, to 30 Gy/4 fractions for stage III, and to 22.5 Gy/3 fractions for stage IV. The corresponding values for MDR were 35.6 Gy/4 fractions, 34 Gy/4 fractions, and 25.5 Gy/3 fractions. The average dose rate at point A was 30 Gy/hour (9.0-65.2) for HDR and 1.7 Gy/hour (1.3-2.2) for MDR. We assumed a DRCF of 0.9 from MDR to HDR. RESULTS: The 3-year cause-specific survival rates for HDR were 85%, 83%, 75%, and 0% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The corresponding figures for MDR were 100%, 82%, 58%, and 40%. Six of the HDR patients (11%) and 2 of the MDR patients (4%) developed Kottmeier's grade 2 or 3 late complications. A DRCF of 0.6 from LDR to MDR could be derived from a DRCF of 0.9 from MDR to HDR and one of 0.54 from LDR to HDR. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in cause-specific survival and incidence of late complications between HDR and MDR. A DRCF of 0.6 from LDR to MDR could be determined. However, because the results of this trial were preliminary, a further study is needed.