BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the proximity, variance, predictors of dose, and complications to the sigmoid in cervical-cancer brachytherapy using 3D planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 36 months, 50 patients were treated for cervical cancer with either low-dose-rate (LDR) or high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. The distance from the central tandem to the sigmoid, the D0.1 cc and the D2 cc to the sigmoid, rectum and bladder doses, and toxicity were analyzed. RESULTS: The median sigmoid EQD2 D0.1 cc and D2 cc were 84 Gy and 68.3 Gy for HDR versus 71.1 Gy and 65.9 Gy for LDR (p=0.02 and 0.98, respectively). Twenty percent of the HDR fractions required manipulation of the superior dwell positions to decrease the sigmoid dose. The median distance from the sigmoid to the tandem was 1.7 cm (range [rg], 0.1-6.16 cm) for HDR and 2.7 cm (rg, 1.17-4.52 cm) for LDR; from the sigmoid to the 100% isodose region the median distances were -0.1 cm (rg, -1.4 to 2.5 cm) and 0.44 cm (rg. -0.73-5.2 cm), respectively. The proximity of the sigmoid to the tandem is significantly related to sigmoid dose (p<0.0001). Within-patient (among-fraction) variation in sigmoid-to-tandem distance during HDR was substantial (coefficient of variation =40%). No grade 3-4 sigmoid toxicity was seen after a median 31-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging in cervical-cancer brachytherapy shows the sigmoid in close proximity to the tandem. The sigmoid-to-tandem distance varies substantially between fractions, indicating the importance of sigmoid dose-volume evaluation with each fraction.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the proximity, variance, predictors of dose, and complications to the sigmoid in cervical-cancer brachytherapy using 3D planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 36 months, 50 patients were treated for cervical cancer with either low-dose-rate (LDR) or high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. The distance from the central tandem to the sigmoid, the D0.1 cc and the D2 cc to the sigmoid, rectum and bladder doses, and toxicity were analyzed. RESULTS: The median sigmoid EQD2 D0.1 cc and D2 cc were 84 Gy and 68.3 Gy for HDR versus 71.1 Gy and 65.9 Gy for LDR (p=0.02 and 0.98, respectively). Twenty percent of the HDR fractions required manipulation of the superior dwell positions to decrease the sigmoid dose. The median distance from the sigmoid to the tandem was 1.7 cm (range [rg], 0.1-6.16 cm) for HDR and 2.7 cm (rg, 1.17-4.52 cm) for LDR; from the sigmoid to the 100% isodose region the median distances were -0.1 cm (rg, -1.4 to 2.5 cm) and 0.44 cm (rg. -0.73-5.2 cm), respectively. The proximity of the sigmoid to the tandem is significantly related to sigmoid dose (p<0.0001). Within-patient (among-fraction) variation in sigmoid-to-tandem distance during HDR was substantial (coefficient of variation =40%). No grade 3-4 sigmoid toxicity was seen after a median 31-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging in cervical-cancer brachytherapy shows the sigmoid in close proximity to the tandem. The sigmoid-to-tandem distance varies substantially between fractions, indicating the importance of sigmoid dose-volume evaluation with each fraction.
Authors: Richard Pötter; Christine Haie-Meder; Erik Van Limbergen; Isabelle Barillot; Marisol De Brabandere; Johannes Dimopoulos; Isabelle Dumas; Beth Erickson; Stefan Lang; An Nulens; Peter Petrow; Jason Rownd; Christian Kirisits Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Christine Haie-Meder; Richard Pötter; Erik Van Limbergen; Edith Briot; Marisol De Brabandere; Johannes Dimopoulos; Isabelle Dumas; Taran Paulsen Hellebust; Christian Kirisits; Stefan Lang; Sabine Muschitz; Juliana Nevinson; An Nulens; Peter Petrow; Natascha Wachter-Gerstner Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Christopher E Pelloski; Matthew Palmer; Gregory M Chronowski; Anuja Jhingran; John Horton; Patricia J Eifel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Johannes Dimopoulos; Christian Kirisits; Daniel Berger; Richard Pötter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hoda Al-Booz; Ion Boiangiu; Helen Appleby; Chris French; Helen Coomber; Pauline Humphery; Paul Cornes Journal: J Egypt Natl Canc Inst Date: 2006-06
Authors: Antonio L Damato; Kanopkis Townamchai; Michele Albert; Ryan J Bair; Robert A Cormack; Joanne Jang; Arpad Kovacs; Larissa J Lee; Kimberley S Mak; Kristina L Mirabeau-Beale; Kent W Mouw; John G Phillips; Jennifer L Pretz; Andrea L Russo; John H Lewis; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Han Liu; James Kinard; Jacqueline Maurer; Qingyang Shang; Caroline Vanderstraeten; Lane Hayes; Benjamin Sintay; David Wiant Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.102