Hari Mukundan1, Kirti Tyagi2, Deboleena Mukherjee2, R K Patel3. 1. Associate Professor and Head (Radiation Oncology Centre), Command Hospital (Air Force), Bangalore 560007, India. 2. Medical Physicist (Radiation Oncology Centre), INHS Asvini, Colaba, Mumbai 400005, India. 3. Senior Advisor (Radiology), INHS Asvini, Colaba, Mumbai 400005, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional treatment planning using radiographs or simulator films was the standard in planning brachytherapy for patients with cervical cancer. Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning has improved treatment efficacy. This retrospective study compares conventional and 3D treatment planning of brachytherapy in patients with cervical cancer and interfraction dose variation to bladder and rectum (D2cc). METHODS: The mean doses to bladder and rectum (D2cc) were computed by computed tomography (CT)-based planning during 100 sessions of intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma cervix with the same source configuration as generated for conventional planning, and these estimates were compared with the doses at International Commission on Radiation Units and measurements (ICRU) rectal, bladder points and point A. Interfraction variation of doses to bladder and rectum during various sessions was also analysed. RESULT: The mean ICRU bladder dose and D2cc of the bladder for all patients was 3.7 Gy and 7.4 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean ICRU rectal dose from conventional plan was 4.3Gy and with CT planning, 4.45 Gy (p = 0.04). Interfraction dose variations for D2cc of the bladder were min -5.3 Gy and max 4.8 Gy and those of the rectum were min -1.8 Gy and max 1.72Gy. CONCLUSION: Dosimetric evaluation of conventional and 3D CT-based treatment planning for the same brachytherapy sessions demonstrated underestimation of ICRU bladder dose points (p < 0.001) and the rectal ICRU point dose and D2cc (p=0.04). The doses to organs at risk did not show a statistically significant variation between the fractions. However, large variation was noted between the interfractional maximum and minimum doses to bladder and rectum.
BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional treatment planning using radiographs or simulator films was the standard in planning brachytherapy for patients with cervical cancer. Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning has improved treatment efficacy. This retrospective study compares conventional and 3D treatment planning of brachytherapy in patients with cervical cancer and interfraction dose variation to bladder and rectum (D2cc). METHODS: The mean doses to bladder and rectum (D2cc) were computed by computed tomography (CT)-based planning during 100 sessions of intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma cervix with the same source configuration as generated for conventional planning, and these estimates were compared with the doses at International Commission on Radiation Units and measurements (ICRU) rectal, bladder points and point A. Interfraction variation of doses to bladder and rectum during various sessions was also analysed. RESULT: The mean ICRU bladder dose and D2cc of the bladder for all patients was 3.7 Gy and 7.4 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean ICRU rectal dose from conventional plan was 4.3Gy and with CT planning, 4.45 Gy (p = 0.04). Interfraction dose variations for D2cc of the bladder were min -5.3 Gy and max 4.8 Gy and those of the rectum were min -1.8 Gy and max 1.72Gy. CONCLUSION: Dosimetric evaluation of conventional and 3D CT-based treatment planning for the same brachytherapy sessions demonstrated underestimation of ICRU bladder dose points (p < 0.001) and the rectal ICRU point dose and D2cc (p=0.04). The doses to organs at risk did not show a statistically significant variation between the fractions. However, large variation was noted between the interfractional maximum and minimum doses to bladder and rectum.
Authors: B R Thomadsen; S Shahabi; J A Stitt; D A Buchler; J F Fowler; B R Paliwal; T J Kinsella Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1992 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Carien L Creutzberg; Peter Craighead; Mary McCormack; Takafumi Toita; Kailash Narayan; Nicholas Reed; Harry Long; Hak-Jae Kim; Christian Marth; Jacob C Lindegaard; Annmarie Cerrotta; William Small; Edward Trimble Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Juan Ren; Wei Yuan; Ruihua Wang; Qiuping Wang; Yi Li; Chaofan Xue; Yanli Yan; Xiaowei Ma; Li Tan; Zi Liu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240