Advertisement

Analysis of Volumetric Dosimetry of Target Volumes and Organs at Risk on ICRU Point-Based Dose Planning in CT-Guided HDR Intracavitary Brachytherapy to Carcinoma Cervix

  • Sumana Maiti
  • Suparna Kanti PalEmail author
  • Suman Meyur
  • Bidhan Chandra Mandal
  • Somapriya Basu Roy
  • Siddhartha Basu
Original Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) has been historically planned based on orthogonal X-rays with point A as prescription point and surrogate rectal and bladder points to determine the approximate dose to organs at risk. This was standardized based on ICRU report 38. However, with the availability of better imaging modalities (CT, MRI), it became obvious that those points were poor surrogates for the tumor or the organ at risk. The current study analyzes the volumetric dose distribution to tumor volume and risk organs, from CT image-guided point-based planning done for intracavitary high-dose-rate brachytherapy using Fletcher–Suit–Delclos applicator in locally advanced carcinoma cervix patients.

Materials and Methods

Fifty-one patients with locally advanced carcinoma cervix who were treated with ICBT were included. Point A-based dose planning was done based on CT images, on Oncentra™ treatment planning software. The doses to bladder point and rectal point were determined and were used for the purpose of dose prescription and optimization. Relevant target volumes and risk organ volumes were determined over the same plans, and dose measurements are taken. They were then analyzed for correlation and linear regression model using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.

Results

The point A-based prescription dose did not adequately cover the target volume. CTV 90 obtained only 53.23% (95% CI 49.21–57.25) of the prescribed dose. The bladder point dose correlated well with all sub-volumes, especially D2cc bladder dose (r = 0.525, p = < 0.001). It satisfied linear regression model with standardized beta of 0.665. On the contrary, the correlation with rectal point and D2cc rectal dose was not strong (r = 0.284, p = 0.055). The point-based dose underestimates bladder dose by 18.24 ± 7.77% and overestimates rectal dose by 5.46 ± 4.55%, both being statistically significant.

Conclusions

CT image-guided point A-based dose planning, without any volume-based optimization, has poor target volume coverage. There is disproportionate overestimation of dose to rectum and rectal wall while calculating from rectal point dose. The bladder point dose has good mathematical prediction for dose to bladder. However, volumetrically, it underestimates the actual dose. While point A-based planning on tomographic imaging can be a stepping stone toward image-guided brachytherapy, volume-based planning is necessary for optimizing the dose to primary tumor and managing risk organ dose properly.

Keywords

Image-guided brachytherapy Carcinoma cervix ICRU point-based dosimetry Bladder point Rectum point Volumetric dosimetry 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. Globocan Database, 2008. http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheets/cancers/cervix.asp. Accessed 23 June 2012.
  2. 2.
    Gustafsson L, Pontén J, Zack M, Adami HO. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8(5):755–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montana GS, Hanlon AL, Brickner TJ, Owen JB, Hanks GE, Ling CC, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: patterns of care studies: review of 1978, 1983, and 1988–1989 surveys. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(5):1481–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bansal I, Panda D, Rathi AK, Anand AK, Bansal AK. Rationale, indications, techniques and applications of interstitial brachytherapy for carcinoma cervix. Asian J Oncol. 2016;2(2):69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ICRU Report 38. Dose and volume specification for reporting intracavitary therapy in gynecology. Bethesda: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. 1985; pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E, Briot E, De Brabandere M, Dimopoulos J, 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 of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol. 2005;74(3):235–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pötter R, Dimopoulos J, Georg P, Lang S, Waldhäusl C, Wachter-Gerstner N, Weitmann H, Reinthaller A, Knocke TH, Wachter S, Kirisits C. Clinical impact of MRI assisted dose volume adaptation and dose escalation in brachytherapy of locally advanced cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2007;83(2):148–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Viswanathan AN, Thomadsen B, American Brachytherapy Society Cervical Cancer Recommendations Committee. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part I: general principles. Brachytherapy. 2012;11(1):33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim H, Kim JY, Kim J, Park W, Kim YS, Kim HJ, Kim YB. Current status of brachytherapy in Korea: a national survey of radiation oncologists. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016;27(4):e33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nag S, Cardenes H, Chang S, Das IJ, Erickson B, Ibbott GS, et al. Proposed guidelines for image-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical carcinoma: report from Image-Guided Brachytherapy Working Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(4):1160–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gandhi AK, Sharma DN, Julka PK, Rath GK. Attitude and practice of brachytherapy in India: a study based on the survey amongst attendees of Annual Meeting of Indian Brachytherapy Society. J Contemp Brachyther. 2015;7(6):462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toita T, Ohno T, Ikushima H, Nishimura T, Uno T, Ogawa K, Onishi H, Dokiya T, Itami J. Working Group of the Japanese Group of Brachytherapy/Japan Society for Radiation Oncology (JGB/JASTRO). National survey of intracavitary brachytherapy for intact uterine cervical cancer in Japan. J Radiat Res. 2018;59(4):469–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Viswanathan AN, Erickson BA. Three-dimensional imaging in gynecologic brachytherapy: a survey of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(1):104–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen SW, Liang JA, Yang SN, Liu RT, Lin FJ. The prediction of late rectal complications following the treatment of uterine cervical cancer by high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(4):955–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Onal C, Arslan G, Topkan E, Pehlivan B, Yavuz M, Oymak E, Yavuz A. Comparison of conventional and CT-based planning for intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer: target volume coverage and organs at risk doses. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009;28(1):95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tanderup K, Nielsen SK, Nyvang GB, Pedersen EM, Røhl L, Aagaard T, Fokdal L, Lindegaard JC. From point A to the sculpted pear: MR image guidance significantly improves tumour dose and sparing of organs at risk in brachytherapy of cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2010;94(2):173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patil VM, Patel FD, Chakraborty S, Oinam AS, Sharma SC. Can point doses predict volumetric dose to rectum and bladder: a CT-based planning study in high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy of cervical carcinoma? Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1001):441–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hashim N, Jamalludin Z, Ung NM, Ho GF, Malik RA, Phua VC. CT based 3-dimensional treatment planning of intracavitary brachytherapy for cancer of the cervix: comparison between dose-volume histograms and ICRU point doses to the rectum and bladder. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(13):5259–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vinod SK, Caldwell K, Lau A, Fowler AR. A comparison of ICRU point doses and volumetric doses of organs at risk (OARs) in brachytherapy for cervical cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2011;55(3):304–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rangarajan R, Saravanan S, Kalyani G. Comparison between DVH-based doses and ICRU point-based doses to the rectum and the bladder using CT-based high-dose rate brachytherapy to the cervix. Med Dosim. 2017;43:276–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jamema SV, Saju S, Mahantshetty U, Pallad S, Deshpande DD, Shrivastava SK, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of rectum and bladder using image-based CT planning and orthogonal radiographs with ICRU 38 recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy. J Med Phys. 2008;33(1):3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yaparpalvi R, Mutyala S, Gorla GR, Butler J, Mah D, Garg MK, et al. Point vs. volumetric bladder and rectal doses in combined intracavitary-interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy: correlation and comparison with published Vienna applicator data. Brachytherapy. 2008;7(4):336–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pelloski CE, Palmer M, Chronowski GM, Jhingran A, Horton J, Eifel PJ. Comparison between CT-based volumetric calculations and ICRU reference-point estimates of radiation doses delivered to bladder and rectum during intracavitary radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62(1):131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wachter-Gerstner N, Wachter S, Reinstadler E, Fellner C, Knocke TH, Wambersie A, et al. Bladder and rectum dose defined from MRI based treatment planning for cervix cancer brachytherapy: comparison of dose-volume histograms for organ contours and organ wall, comparison with ICRU rectum and bladder reference point. Radiother Oncol. 2003;68(3):269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiotherapy and OncologyInstitute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research and SSKM HospitalKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of RadiotherapyBankura Sammilani Medical CollegeBankuraIndia

Personalised recommendations