Cargando…
Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT.
PURPOSE / OBJECTIVE: This study compares the dosimetric plans of three distinct boost modalities in cervical cancer (CC): intracavitary (IC) with tandem/ovoids brachytherapy (BT), IC + interstitial (IS) BT, and Stereotactic-Body-Radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim is to determine the dosimetric impact in t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10308761/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37381016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02295-4 |
_version_ | 1785066315027841024 |
---|---|
author | Benkhaled, Sofian Diakité, Kadiatou Jullian, Nicolas Poeta, Sara Vandekerkhove, Christophe Van Houtte, Paul Van Gestel, Dirk De Caluwé, Alex |
author_facet | Benkhaled, Sofian Diakité, Kadiatou Jullian, Nicolas Poeta, Sara Vandekerkhove, Christophe Van Houtte, Paul Van Gestel, Dirk De Caluwé, Alex |
author_sort | Benkhaled, Sofian |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE / OBJECTIVE: This study compares the dosimetric plans of three distinct boost modalities in cervical cancer (CC): intracavitary (IC) with tandem/ovoids brachytherapy (BT), IC + interstitial (IS) BT, and Stereotactic-Body-Radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim is to determine the dosimetric impact in terms of target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 24 consecutive IC + IS BT boost treatment plans were retrospectively identified. For each plan included, two additional plans were created: IC-BT and SBRT. Importantly, no planning target volume (PTV) or planning (organ at) risk volume (PRV) margins were generated, therefore all structures were identical for any boost modality. Two different normalizations were performed: (1) Normalization to the target: prescription of 7.1 Gy to the D90% (defined as the minimum dose covering 90%) of the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV); (2) Normalization to the OARs. HR-CTV coverage and OARs sparing were compared. The equivalent doses in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) of EBRT and BT for CTV-HR and OARs were calculated using the linear-quadratic model with α/β of 10 (EQD2(10)) and 3 (EQD2(3)), respectively RESULTS: A total of 72 plans were investigated. In the first normalization, the mean EQD2(3−)D2cc (defined as the minimal dose of the 2 cc) of OAR was significantly higher in the IC-BT plans, and the bladder D2cc hard constraint could not be reached. IC + IS BT leads to a 1 Gy mean absolute decrease of bladder EQD2(3)-D2cc (relative dose: -19%), allowing to reach the hard constraint. SBRT (without PTV) delivers the lowest EQD2(3)-D2cc to the OAR. In the second normalization, IC-BT provides a significantly lower dose to the EQD2(10)-D90% (6.62 Gy) and cannot achieve the coverage goal. SBRT (without PTV) yields the highest dose to the D90% of HR-CTV and a significantly lower EQD2(10)-D50% and D30%. CONCLUSION: The key dosimetric benefit of BT over SBRT without PTV is a significantly higher D50% and D30% in the HR-CTV, which increases the local and conformal dose to the target. IC + IS BT vs. IC-BT provides significantly better target coverage and a lower dose to the OARs, making it the preferred boost modality in CC. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10308761 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103087612023-06-30 Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT. Benkhaled, Sofian Diakité, Kadiatou Jullian, Nicolas Poeta, Sara Vandekerkhove, Christophe Van Houtte, Paul Van Gestel, Dirk De Caluwé, Alex Radiat Oncol Research PURPOSE / OBJECTIVE: This study compares the dosimetric plans of three distinct boost modalities in cervical cancer (CC): intracavitary (IC) with tandem/ovoids brachytherapy (BT), IC + interstitial (IS) BT, and Stereotactic-Body-Radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim is to determine the dosimetric impact in terms of target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 24 consecutive IC + IS BT boost treatment plans were retrospectively identified. For each plan included, two additional plans were created: IC-BT and SBRT. Importantly, no planning target volume (PTV) or planning (organ at) risk volume (PRV) margins were generated, therefore all structures were identical for any boost modality. Two different normalizations were performed: (1) Normalization to the target: prescription of 7.1 Gy to the D90% (defined as the minimum dose covering 90%) of the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV); (2) Normalization to the OARs. HR-CTV coverage and OARs sparing were compared. The equivalent doses in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) of EBRT and BT for CTV-HR and OARs were calculated using the linear-quadratic model with α/β of 10 (EQD2(10)) and 3 (EQD2(3)), respectively RESULTS: A total of 72 plans were investigated. In the first normalization, the mean EQD2(3−)D2cc (defined as the minimal dose of the 2 cc) of OAR was significantly higher in the IC-BT plans, and the bladder D2cc hard constraint could not be reached. IC + IS BT leads to a 1 Gy mean absolute decrease of bladder EQD2(3)-D2cc (relative dose: -19%), allowing to reach the hard constraint. SBRT (without PTV) delivers the lowest EQD2(3)-D2cc to the OAR. In the second normalization, IC-BT provides a significantly lower dose to the EQD2(10)-D90% (6.62 Gy) and cannot achieve the coverage goal. SBRT (without PTV) yields the highest dose to the D90% of HR-CTV and a significantly lower EQD2(10)-D50% and D30%. CONCLUSION: The key dosimetric benefit of BT over SBRT without PTV is a significantly higher D50% and D30% in the HR-CTV, which increases the local and conformal dose to the target. IC + IS BT vs. IC-BT provides significantly better target coverage and a lower dose to the OARs, making it the preferred boost modality in CC. BioMed Central 2023-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10308761/ /pubmed/37381016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02295-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Benkhaled, Sofian Diakité, Kadiatou Jullian, Nicolas Poeta, Sara Vandekerkhove, Christophe Van Houtte, Paul Van Gestel, Dirk De Caluwé, Alex Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT. |
title | Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT. |
title_full | Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT. |
title_fullStr | Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT. |
title_full_unstemmed | Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT. |
title_short | Boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary BT vs. intracavitary + interstitial BT vs. SBRT. |
title_sort | boost modalities in cervical cancer: dosimetric comparison between intracavitary bt vs. intracavitary + interstitial bt vs. sbrt. |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10308761/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37381016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02295-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT benkhaledsofian boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt AT diakitekadiatou boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt AT julliannicolas boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt AT poetasara boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt AT vandekerkhovechristophe boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt AT vanhouttepaul boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt AT vangesteldirk boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt AT decaluwealex boostmodalitiesincervicalcancerdosimetriccomparisonbetweenintracavitarybtvsintracavitaryinterstitialbtvssbrt |