| Literature DB >> 25834580 |
Yasir A Bahadur1, Camelia Constantinescu2, Ashraf H Hassouna3, Maha M Eltaher4, Noor M Ghassal2, Nesreen A Awad4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the potential dosimetric advantages of a multichannel vaginal applicator vs. a single channel one in intracavitary vaginal high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy after hysterectomy, and evaluate the dosimetric advantage of fractional re-planning.Entities:
Keywords: endometrial cancer; inverse planning; multichannel applicator; vaginal brachytherapy
Year: 2014 PMID: 25834580 PMCID: PMC4300361 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2014.47816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Treatment characteristics
| No. of patients | No. of fractions | |
|---|---|---|
| 3 (25%) | 9 | |
| 4 (33%) | 8 | |
| 5 (42%) | 5 | |
| 12 | 22 | |
| 10 (83%) | 19 (86%) | |
| 2 (17%) | 3 (14%) |
Fig. 1Dose distribution comparison between single channel (A) and multichannel (B), in axial and sagittal views. Isodose line of 7 Gy (prescribed dose) is displayed in yellow, 6.3 Gy (90% of prescribed dose) in green, 4.9 Gy (70% of prescribed dose) in pink and 14 Gy (200% of prescribed dose) in magenta. The capability of multichannel to correct for anisotropy at vaginal apex is clearly illustrated
Fig. 2Dose-volume histogram comparison between single channel (squares) and multichannel (triangles) approaches. Clinical target volume is displayed in red, rectum in green and bladder in blue
Dosimetric comparison between single and multichannel approaches, presented as mean and standard deviation for fractional prescribed dose of 7 Gy
| Single channel (mean ± SD) | Multi-channel (mean ± SD) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D100% (%) | 73.7 ± 7 | 74.8 ± 6.8 | 0.15 | |
| D95% (%) | 94.7 ± 6 | 95.6 ± 6.7 | 0.007 | |
| D2cc (Gy) | 12.3 ± 2.2 | 14.1 ± 1.9 | 0.0002 | |
| DNR | 0.14 ± 0.08 | 0.26 ± 0.05 | 0.0001 | |
| OI | 0.04 ± 0.03 | 0.07 ± 0.03 | 0.0001 | |
| D1cc (Gy) | 6.5 ± 0.7 | 5.5 ± 0.6 | 0.0001 | |
| D2cc (Gy) | 6.1 ± 0.7 | 5.1 ± 0.6 | 0.0001 | |
| V70% (cc) | 12.2 ± 8 | 6.3 ± 3.5 | 0.0001 | |
| D1cc (Gy) | 5.4 ± 0.9 | 5.2 ± 0.8 | 0.081 | |
| D2cc (Gy) | 5 ± 0.9 | 4.9 ± 0.8 | 0.053 | |
| V80% (cc) | 1.2 ± 1.5 | 1 ± 1.2 | 0.77 | |
CTV – clinical target volume; D100% – the dose covering 100% of volume; D95% – the dose covering 95% of volume; DNR – dose nonuniformity index DNR = V150%/V100%; OI – overdose index OI = V200%/V100%; D1cc – the dose received by the most exposed volume of 1 cm3; D2cc – the dose received by the most exposed volume of 2 cm3; V70% – the volume receiving 70% of prescription dose; V80% – the volume receiving 80% of prescription dose
Dose percentage differences between first fraction plan and fractional re-planning, presented as mean and standard deviation for fractional prescribed dose of 7 Gy
| Dose difference (%) (mean ± SD) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| D100% (%) | –12.1 ± 26.9 | 0.12 | |
| D95% (%) | –9.8 ± 18 | 0.09 | |
| D1cc (Gy) | 3.9 ± 13.6 | 0.19 | |
| D2cc (Gy) | 1.9 ± 12.6 | 0.29 | |
| D1cc (Gy) | 1.4 ± 6.6 | 0.41 | |
| D2cc (Gy) | 0.6 ± 6 | 0.45 |
CTV – clinical target volume; D100% – the dose covering 100% of volume; D95% – the dose covering 95% of volume; D1cc – the dose received by the most exposed volume of 1 cm3; D2cc – the dose received by the most exposed volume of 2 cm3
Fig. 3Dose percentage differences between first fraction plan and fractional re-planning
Fig. 4The inter-fraction variation in rectum and bladder positioning (A) and filling (B), in sagittal view, for two representative patients. Figure 4A presents the patient with fraction 4; outstanding inter-fraction variations in OARs positioning is observed