Three-dimensional Treatment Planning of Intracavitary Gynecologic Implants: Analysis of Ten Cases and Implications for Dose Specification
Overview
Affiliations
Purpose: Results of 3-dimensional treatment planning for ten intracavitary gynecologic implants and implications for dose specification are presented.
Methods And Materials: Using a computed tomographic (CT) compatible intracavitary applicator we have performed CT scans during gynecologic brachytherapy in 10 cases. A CT-based treatment planning system with 3-dimensional capabilities was used to calculate and display dose in three dimensions. Conventional point doses including the estimated bladder and rectal maximum doses and dose to Point A were acquired from orthogonal simulation films. CT maximum bladder and rectal doses and minimum cervix doses were ascertained from isodose lines displayed on individual CT images. Dose volume histograms for the bladder, rectum and cervix were generated and used to obtain volume of the cervix target volume receiving less than the prescribed dose and the volume of bladder and rectum receiving more than the orthogonal maximum doses. The 5 cc volume of bladder and rectum receiving the highest dose were also calculated.
Results: Average values of CT point doses and volumes are compared with the traditionally obtained doses. As demonstrated by others, much higher bladder and rectal doses are found using the CT information. The minimum dose to the cervix target volume is lower than the dose to Point A in each case. CT maximum bladder and rectum and minimum cervix target doses may not be the best index doses to correlate with outcome because of the small volumes receiving the dose.
Conclusion: We hypothesize that clinically useful bladder, rectal and cervix target volume doses will include volume information which is obtainable with dose volume histogram analysis.
Dosimetric analysis of intracavitary brachytherapy applicators: a practical study.
Khan A, Vijay A, Wani S, Haq M Radiat Oncol J. 2022; 40(3):180-191.
PMID: 36200307 PMC: 9535410. DOI: 10.3857/roj.2022.00199.
Salas J, Veliz D Ecancermedicalscience. 2022; 16:1415.
PMID: 36072239 PMC: 9377822. DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2022.1415.
Kim H, Lee Y, Benedict S, Dyer B, Price M, Rong Y Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021; 111(4):999-1010.
PMID: 34147581 PMC: 8594937. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.06.019.
Mukundan H, Tyagi K, Mukherjee D, Patel R Med J Armed Forces India. 2020; 76(2):201-206.
PMID: 32476719 PMC: 7244865. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2019.02.004.
Srivastava S, Painuly N, Mishra S, Srivastava K, Singh N, Singh S J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020; 9(6):603-612.
PMID: 32039090 PMC: 6943852. DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.867.