eISSN: 2081-2841
ISSN: 1689-832X
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
Current Issue Archive Supplements Articles in Press Journal Information Aims and Scope Editorial Office Editorial Board Register as Author Register as Reviewer Instructions for Authors Abstracting and indexing Subscription Advertising Information Links
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

1/2019
vol. 11
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Comparative analysis of image-guided adaptive interstitial brachytherapy and intensity-modulated arc therapy versus conventional treatment techniques in cervical cancer using biological dose summation

Georgina Fröhlich, Júlia Vízkeleti, Anhhong Nhung Nguyen, Tibor Major, Csaba Polgár

J Contemp Brachytherapy 2019; 11, 1: 69–75
Online publish date: 2019/02/18
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Purpose
To compare image-guided adaptive interstitial brachytherapy (BT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with conventional treatment techniques in cervical cancer using an alternative biological dose summation method.

Material and methods
Initially, 21 interstitial BT and IMAT plans of patients with cervical cancer were included and additional plans were created (inverse optimized interstitial, optimized intracavitary, non-optimized intracavitary BT plans, and conformal external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]). The most exposed volume of critical organs in BT were identified manually on EBRT CT images. Biological total doses (EQD2) were calculated and compared between each combination of BT and EBRT plans. This method was compared with uniform dose conception (UDC) in IMAT and conformal EBRT plans.

Results
The D90 of high-risk CTV and D2 of bladder and sigmoid were different in BT techniques only: p = 0.0149, < 0.001, < 0.001, respectively. The most advantageous values were obtained in the interstitial treatment plans and inverse optimized interstitial plans did not differ dosimetrically from these, while optimized intracavitary plans resulted in worse dose-volume parameters, and the worst of all were intracavitary plans without optimization. The D2 of rectum was significantly lower with IMAT than with conformal EBRT plans (p = 0.037) and showed the same trend in BT plans as the other parameters (p < 0.001). The UDC dose summation method overestimated D2 of bladder, rectum, and sigmoid (p < 0.001 for all).

Conclusions
Although optimization improves the quality of conventional BT plans, interstitial plans produce significantly higher dose coverage of high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and lower doses to organs at risk (OARs). IMAT plans decrease the dose to the rectum. UDC overestimates OARs doses.

keywords:

cervical cancer, dose summation, integrated biological doses, intensity-modulated arc therapy, interstitial brachytherapy

references:
Georg D, Kirisits C, Hillbrand M et al. Image-guided radiotherapy for cervix cancer: high-tech external beam therapy versus high-tech brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71: 1272-1278.
Pötter R, Dimopoulos J, Georg P et al. Clinical impact of MRI assisted dose volume adaptation and dose escalation in brachytherapy of locally advanced cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007; 83: 148-155.
Mazeron R, Gilmore J, Dumas I et al. Adaptive 3D image-guided brachytherapy: a strong argument in the debate on systematic radical hysterectomy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Oncologist 2013; 18: 415-422.
Lanciano RM, Martz K, Coia LR et al. Tumor and treatment factors improving outcome in stage III-B cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 20: 95-100.
Pötter R, Georg P, Dimopoulos JC et al. Clinical outcome of protocol-based image (MRI) guided adaptive brachytherapy combined with 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011; 100: 116-123.
Dimopoulos JCA, Lang S, Kirisits C et al. Dose-volume histogram parameters and local control in magnetic resonance image-guided cervical cancer brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75: 56-63.
Dimopoulos JCA, Pötter R, Lang S et al. Dose-effect relationship for local control of cervical cancer by magnetic resonance image-guided brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 311-315.
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 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy – 3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiother Oncol 2006; 78: 67-77.
Georg P, Kirisits C, Goldner G et al. Correlation of dose-volume parameters, endoscopic and clinical rectal side effects in cervix cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy including MRI-based brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2009; 91: 173-180.
Fowler JF. The linear-quadratic formula on progress in fractionated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 1989; 62: 679-694.
Nag S, Gupta N. A simple method of obtaining equivalent doses for use in HDR brachytherapy. Int J Radial Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46: 507-513.
EMBRACE study protocol, https://www.embracestudy.dk/
Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): Concepts and terms in 3D image-based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment on GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 2005; 74: 235-245.
Fröhlich G, Lang S, Berger D et al. Spatial relationship of the 3D dose distribution from brachytherapy and external beam therapy for adding both dose plans in patients with cervix cancer. Brachytherapy 2008; 7: 95.
Gelover E, Katherine C, Mart C et al. Patient’s specific integration of OAR doses (D2 cc) from EBRT and 3D image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018; 19: 83-92.
Van de Kamer JB, De Leeuw AAC, Moerland MA et al. Determining DVH parameters for combined external beam and brachytherapy treatment: 3D biological dose adding for patients with cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2010; 94: 248-253.
ICRU Report 89. Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Brachytherapy for Cancer of the Cervix. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Kirisits C, Lang S, Dimopoulos J et al. The Vienna applicator for combined intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy of cervical cancer. Design, application, treatment planning, and dosimetric results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 5: 624-630.
Fokdal L, Tanderup K, Hokland SB et al. Clinical feasibility of combined intracavitary/ interstitial brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer employing MRI with a tandem/ ring applicator in situ and virtual preplanning of the interstitial component. Radiother Oncol 2013; 107: 63-68.
Jürgenliemk-Schulz IM, Tersteeg RHA, Roesink JM et al. MRI-guided treatment planning optimisation in intracavitary or combined intracavitary/interstitial PDR brachytherapy using tandem ovoid applicators in locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 322-330.
Fröhlich G, Vízkeleti J, Anhhong NN et al. Dosimetric evaluation of combined intracavitary-interstitial image-guided adaptive brachytherapy of cervical cancer and comparison with conventional treatment techniques. Magy Onkol 2018; 62: 242-248.
Vízkeleti J, Fröhlich G, Anhhong NN et al. Clinical results of combined intracavitary-interstitial image-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Magy Onkol 2018; 62: 249-257.
Fallon J, Park SJ, Yang L et al. Long-term results from a prospective database on high dose rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy for primary cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144: 21-27.
Tanderup K, Eifel PJ, Yashar CM et al. Curative radiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: brachytherapy is NOT optional. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 88: 537-539.
Fenkell L, Assenholt M, Nielsen SK et al. Parametrial “boost” using midline shielding results in an unpredictable dose to tumour and organs at risk in combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79: 1572-1579.
Yin G, Wang P, Lang J et al. Dosimetric study for cervix carcinoma treatment using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compensation based on 3D intracavitary brachytherapy technique. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2016; 8: 221-232.
Lim K, Small W, Portelance L et al. Consensus guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy for the definitive treatment of cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79: 348-355.
Nováková E, Heijkoop ST, Quint S et al. What is the optimal number of library plans in ART for locally advanced cervical cancer? Radiother Oncol 2017; 125: 470-477.
Hsieh CH, Tien HJ, Hsiao SM et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy via helical tomotherapy to replace brachytherapy for brachytherapy-unsuitable cervical cancer patients – a preliminary result. Onco Targets Ther 2013; 6: 59-66.
Guckenberger M, Bachmann J, Wulf J et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for local boost irradiation in unfavourable locally recurrent gynaecological cancer. Radiother Oncol 2010; 94: 53-59.
Gill BS, Lin JF, Krivak TC et al. National cancer data base analysis of radiation therapy consolidation modality for cervical cancer: the impact of new technological advancements. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 90: 1083-1090.
Mollà M, Escude L, Nouet P et al. Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy boost for gynecologic tumors: an alternative to brachytherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62: 118-124.
Haas JA, Witten MR, Clancey O et al. CyberKnife boost for patients with cervical cancer unable to undergo brachytherapy. Front Oncol 2012; 2: 25.
Koh V, Choo BA, Lee KM et al. Feasibility study of toxicity outcomes using GEC-ESTRO contouring guidelines on CT based instead of MRI-based planning in locally advanced cervical cancer patients. Brachytherapy 2017; 16: 126-132.
Zolciak-Siwinska A, Kowalczyk A, Sikorska K et al. Comparison of computed tomography with magnetic resonance imaging for imaging-based clinical target volume contours in cervical cancer brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2018; 17: 667-672.
Pötter R, Federico M, Sturdza A et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging without or with applicator in place for target definition in cervix cancer brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 94: 588-597.
Paul AG, Nalichowski A, Abrams J et al. Dosimetric evaluation of Point A and volume-based high-dose-rate plans: a single institution study on adaptive brachytherapy planning for cervical cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10: 202-210.
 
Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe