Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics | 2019

Comparison of volume doses from conventional two-dimensional brachytherapy with corresponding doses from three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging-based brachytherapy in carcinoma cervix



Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the doses delivered to the brachytherapy (BT) target volume and organs at risk from two-dimensional X-ray-based plans on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to compare these doses with the corresponding doses from the image-based optimized plans. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with cervical cancer treated with chemoradiation and BT were included in this study. All patients had two sets of treatment plans generated for the first fraction of BT. Volume doses resulting from MRI-based optimized plans were compared with the corresponding doses from standard “Point A” prescription plans. Results: There was statistically significant difference between the two planning modalities for the mean high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) D90 doses (P = 0.0014) although mean D2cc of bladder (P = 0.1667) and rectum (P = 0.051) was not different. Standard plans with a prescription dose of 7 Gy to Point A delivered a mean HRCTV D90 of 10.07 Gy in patients with no gross residual disease at the time of BT, which was very similar to the mean dose from MR-based plans (MRI 10.02 Gy and standard 10.07 Gy). The only factor seen affecting dose distribution in this group was the applicator geometry. Standard plans failed to deliver HRCTV D90 doses of >8.5 Gy in all patients with gross residual disease. The doses were <7.00 Gy to the HRCTV in three patients who had maximum residual diseases at the time of BT. Conclusion: Conventional X-ray-based plans with moderate Point A doses deliver HRCTV D90 comparable to MRI-based plans in patients with no residual disease, and centrally placed residual disease, provided proper applicator placement and ideal geometry can be ensured. Soft-tissue image-based BT dose optimization ought to be considered in all patients with gross residual disease at the time of brachytherapy.

Volume 15
Pages 1332 - 1337
DOI 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_992_17
Language English
Journal Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics

Full Text