AIM: Dosimetic comparison of manual forward planning(MFP) with inverse planning(IP) for interstitial brachytherapy(ISBT) in cervical carcinoma. BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy planning by MFP is more reliable but time-consuming method, whereas IP has been explored more often for its ease and rapidness. The superiority of either is yet to be established. METHODOLOGY: Two plans were created on data sets of 24 patients of cervical carcinoma who had undergone ISBT, one by MFP with uniform dwell times and another IP on BrachyVision 13.7 planning system with a dose prescription of 600 cGy. Isodose shaper was used for improving conformity & homogeneity. Dosimetric parameters for target and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded. Conformity index (COIN), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose index (OI), Coverage index (CI) and dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) were calculated. RESULTS: Mean high risk clinical target volume: 73.05(±20.7)cc, D90: 5.51 Gy vs. 5.6 Gy (p = 0.017), V100: 81.77 % vs. 83.74 % (p = 0.002), V150: 21.7 % vs. 24.93 % (p = 0.002), V200: 6.3 % vs. 6.4 % (p=0.75) for IP and MFP, respectively. CI: 0.81(IP) and 0.83(MFP) (p = 0.003); however, COIN was 0.79 for both plans. D2cc of OARs was statistically better with IP (bladder 54.7 % vs. 56.1 %, p = 0.03; rectum 63 % vs. 64.7 %, (p = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: Both MFP and IP are equally acceptable dosimetrically. With higher dose achieved to the target, for a similar OAR dose, MFP provides greater user flexibility of dwell positions within the target as well as better optimization. Isodose shaper may be carefully used for fine tuning. Larger sample sizes and clinical correlation will better answer the superiority of one over the other.
AIM: Dosimetic comparison of manual forward planning(MFP) with inverse planning(IP) for interstitial brachytherapy(ISBT) in cervical carcinoma. BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy planning by MFP is more reliable but time-consuming method, whereas IP has been explored more often for its ease and rapidness. The superiority of either is yet to be established. METHODOLOGY: Two plans were created on data sets of 24 patients of cervical carcinoma who had undergone ISBT, one by MFP with uniform dwell times and another IP on BrachyVision 13.7 planning system with a dose prescription of 600 cGy. Isodose shaper was used for improving conformity & homogeneity. Dosimetric parameters for target and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded. Conformity index (COIN), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose index (OI), Coverage index (CI) and dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) were calculated. RESULTS: Mean high risk clinical target volume: 73.05(±20.7)cc, D90: 5.51 Gy vs. 5.6 Gy (p = 0.017), V100: 81.77 % vs. 83.74 % (p = 0.002), V150: 21.7 % vs. 24.93 % (p = 0.002), V200: 6.3 % vs. 6.4 % (p=0.75) for IP and MFP, respectively. CI: 0.81(IP) and 0.83(MFP) (p = 0.003); however, COIN was 0.79 for both plans. D2cc of OARs was statistically better with IP (bladder 54.7 % vs. 56.1 %, p = 0.03; rectum 63 % vs. 64.7 %, (p = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: Both MFP and IP are equally acceptable dosimetrically. With higher dose achieved to the target, for a similar OAR dose, MFP provides greater user flexibility of dwell positions within the target as well as better optimization. Isodose shaper may be carefully used for fine tuning. Larger sample sizes and clinical correlation will better answer the superiority of one over the other.
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: Pramod Kumar Sharma; Praveen Kumar Sharma; Jamema V Swamidas; Umesh Mahantshetty; D D Deshpande; Jayanand Manjhi; D V Rai Journal: J Med Phys Date: 2014-07