The influence of the used applicators on organ and target doses for cervical cancer patients treated with HDR brachytherapy

Pszczółkowska, Beata; Bijok, Michał; Brzozowska, Beata

doi:10.2478/pjmpe-2022-0017

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this work was to study the influence of the applicators used for cervical cancer patients treated with high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland on doses in the tumour volumes and organs at risk.

Material and methods: The treatment was carried out using Iridium-192 in 4 fractions (7.5 Gy each) given in weekly intervals. Two types of applicators were used for comparison: fletcher and ring. The standard dose distribution parameters, read from the system Oncentra Brachy (version 4.5, Elekta), for bladder, rectum, and sigmoid (D_{2 cc}) and tumour (HRCTV D₁₀₀, D₉₈, D₉₀) were studied. Patients were divided into two groups (240 treatment plans) depending on the type of applicator used and into four groups according to the tumour volumes (HR-CTV < 25 cm³ or HR-CTV ≥ 25 cm³). The collected data were analysed using the PQStatSoftware (version 1.8.2).

Results: The treatment plans prepared with all types of applicators fulfil the dose distribution requirements, however, the dose delivered to the tumour using the ring applicator was found to be the highest. For the bladder and sigmoid the optimal dose distribution was obtained when using the fletcher applicator, while for the rectum the ring applicator gave the smallest dose value. The D_{2 cc} parameter for sigmoid obtained for fletcher treatment has smaller values in the case of patients with small tumour volume and for this type of applicator was observed a statistically significant difference when compared with the ring.

Conclusions: The ring applicator gives the optimal parameters of the dose distribution independently on the tumour volume with respect to the fletcher applicator, which is however more often used in clinical practice.

References

1. Zhang X, Zeng Q, Cai W, Ruan W. Trends of cervical cancer at global, regional, and national level: data from the Global Burden of Disease study 2019. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):894. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10907-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Green J, Kirwan J, Tierney J et al. Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2001;358(9284):781-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05965-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Vinin N, Jones J, Ajas V et al. Organ at Risk Doses during High Dose Rate Intracavitary Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer: A Dosimetric Study. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology. 2018;07(04):472-478. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.78040
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Pötter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Limbergen E et al. Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy-3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2006;78(1):67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2005.11.014
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B et al. The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2000;48(1):201-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00497-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Swamidas J, Mahantshetty U. ICRU report 89: prescribing, recording, and reporting brachytherapy for cancer of the cervix. Journal of Medical Physics. 2017;42(suppl1);48.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Romano K, Hill C, Trifiletti D et al. High dose-rate tandem and ovoid brachytherapy in cervical cancer: dosimetric predictors of adverse events. Radiation Oncology. 2018;13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1074-2604883830012164
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Tornero-López A, Guirado D. Radiobiological considerations in combining doses from external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2018;23(6):562-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2018.05.007627727230534020
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Wang C, Huang E, Sun L et al. Clinical comparison of two linear-quadratic model-based isoeffect fractionation schemes of high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2004;59(1):179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.02515093915
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Vinin N, Dharmarajan A, Sahin PM et al. Dosimetric comparison of tandem and ovoids with tandem and ring for intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma cervix. Oncology and Radiotherapy. 2019;46(1):39-42.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Rangarajan R. Dosimetric evaluation of image based brachytherapy using tandem ovoid and tandem ring applicators. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2018;23(1):57-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2017.12.006576784429348735
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Levin D, Menhel J, Rabin T, Pfeffer M, Symon Z. Dosimetric Comparison of Tandem and Ovoids vs. Tandem and Ring for Intracavitary Gynecologic Applications. Medical Dosimetry. 2008;33(4):315-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2008.06.00318973861
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Erickson B, Jones R, Rownd J et al. Is the tandem and ring applicator a suitable alternative to the high dose rate selectron tandem and ovoid applicator? Journal of Brachytherapy International. 2000;16(2):131-144.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Harmon G, Diak A, Shea S, Yacoub J, Small W, Harkenrider M. Point A vs. HR-CTV D90 in MRI-based cervical brachytherapy of small and large lesions. Brachytherapy. 2016;15(6):825-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2016.08.010
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Dumane V, Yuan Y, Sheu R, Gupta V. Computed tomography-based treatment planning for high-dose-rate brachytherapy using the tandem and ring applicator: influence of applicator choice on organ dose and inter-fraction adaptive planning. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2017;3:279-286. https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2017.68519
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Noyes W, Peters N, Thomadsen B et al. Impact of “optimized” treatment planning for tandem and ring, and tandem and ovoids, using high dose rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 1995;31(1):79-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)00401-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Siavashpour Z, Aghamiri M, Jaberi R et al. A comparison of organs at risk doses in GYN intracavitary brachytherapy for different tandem lengths and bladder volumes. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(3):5-13. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5584569092727167253
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Suryadevara A, Kumar M, Vasundhara E, Alluri K, Ahamed S, Guduru S. A dosimetric comparison between applicators used for brachytherapy in carcinoma cervix – A single-institute prospective study. Indian J Cancer. 2018;55(3):230. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijc.ijc_659_17
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The influence of the used applicators on organ and target doses for cervical cancer patients treated with HDR brachytherapy

Abstract

Paradigm

My account