| Literature DB >> 32695201 |
Taylor J Corriher1, Sunil W Dutta1, Clayton E Alonso1, Bruce Libby1, Kara D Romano1, Timothy N Showalter1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For cervical brachytherapy planning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is preferable to computed tomography (CT) for target delineation. However, due to logistical and financial restrictions, in-room MRI is sometimes not routinely available in brachytherapy centers. Our institution has created a workflow that integrates MRI-based target delineation with an in-room CT scanner, with the aim of improving target coverage and conformality. This study reports the initial dosimetric results with using this workflow.Entities:
Keywords: brachytherapy; magnetic resonance imaging; uterine cervical neoplasms
Year: 2020 PMID: 32695201 PMCID: PMC7366020 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2020.96871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Fig. 1Institutional workflow. The Smit sleeve is placed under anesthesia. The MRI between the first and subse- quent fractions is performed outpatient, separate from brachytherapy procedure, and is also used for external beam response assessment
CT – computed tomography, GTV – gross tumor volume, MRI – magnetic resonance imaging
Patient, disease, and treatment characteristics
| % or range | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 46 | |||
| Clinical characteristics | ||||
| Age at brachytherapy (years) | 49.9 | 31.6-71.4 | ||
| Histology | ||||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 38 | 82.6% | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 7 | 15.2% | ||
| Adenosquamous carcinoma | 1 | 2.2% | ||
| Clinical tumor size (cm) | 6 | 2-9 | ||
| FIGO stage (2009) | ||||
| IB1 | 3 | 6.5% | ||
| IB2 | 13 | 28.3% | ||
| IIA1 | 0 | 0.0% | ||
| IIA2 | 1 | 2.2% | ||
| IIB | 20 | 43.5% | ||
| IIIB | 7 | 15.2% | ||
| IVA | 2 | 4.3% | ||
| Staging MRI | ||||
| No | 18 | 39.1% | ||
| Yes | 28 | 60.9% | ||
| Staging PET | ||||
| No | 5 | 10.9% | ||
| Yes | 41 | 89.1% | ||
| Treatment characteristics | ||||
| EBRT pelvic dose (Gy) | 45 | 45-50.4 | ||
| EBRT fractions | 25 | 25-28 | ||
| EBRT LN boost | ||||
| No | 22 | 47.8% | ||
| Yes | 24 | 52.2% | ||
| EBRT parametrial boost | ||||
| No | 41 | 89.1% | ||
| Yes | 5 | 10.9% | ||
| Tandem length | ||||
| 4 cm | 3 | 6.5% | ||
| 6 cm | 41 | 89.1% | ||
| 8 cm | 2 | 4.3% | ||
| Ovoid size (buildup diameter) | ||||
| Mini (1.6 cm) | 9 | 19.6% | ||
| Small (2.0 cm) | 28 | 60.9% | ||
| Medium (2.5 cm) | 9 | 19.6% | ||
| Brachytherapy total prescription dose (Gy) | 25 | 25-29 | ||
| CTV-D90% total EQD2 | 88.35 | 71.9-118.3 | ||
| Bladder D2cc total EQD2 (Gy) | 69.85 | 53.0-104.3 | ||
| Rectal D2cc total EQD2 (Gy) | 63.2 | 53.4-75.4 | ||
| Sigmoid D2cc total EQD2 (Gy) | 61.4 | 50.3-82.2 | ||
CTV – clinical target volume, D2cc – maximum dose received by 2cc of the volume, D90% – maximum dose received by 90% of the volume, EBRT – external beam radiation therapy, ECOG – Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, EQD2 – equivalent total dose in 2-Gy fractions (assuming α/β of 10 Gy for tumor and 3 Gy for normal tissues), FIGO – International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, MRI – magnetic resonance imaging, PET – positron emission tomography
Matched-pair analysis comparing dosimetric values from CT only based planning to MRI-based planning
| Fraction 1 (Gy) | Fraction 2-5 average (Gy) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| D90% HR-CTV | 6.07 | 6.64 | 0.017 |
| D2cc rectum | 2.96 | 3.17 | 0.01 |
| D2cc bladder | 3.72 | 3.84 | 0.442 |
| D2cc sigmoid | 2.76 | 2.87 | 0.29 |
HR-CTV – high-risk clinical target volume, D2cc – maximum dose received by 2cc of the volume, D90% – maximum dose received by 90% of the volume
Fig. 2Mean dose to structures by fraction number for the entire cohort (n = 46). Fractions 2-5 were based on MRI for HR-CTV delineation. D90, maximum dose received by 90% of the volume to the HR-CTV
Fig. 3Percent change from CT to MRI-based target de- lineation of the HR-CTV for the patients with complete volumetric data (n = 18)