Cargando…

Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators

PURPOSE: This study is intended to compare dose-volume parameters evaluated using different forward planning- optimization techniques, involving two applicator systems in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. It looks for the best applicator-optimization combination to fulfill recommended...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chakrabarti, Bikramjit, Basu-Roy, Somapriya, Kar, Sanjay Kumar, Das, Sounik, Lahiri, Annesha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29204164
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2017.70677
_version_ 1783282101698691072
author Chakrabarti, Bikramjit
Basu-Roy, Somapriya
Kar, Sanjay Kumar
Das, Sounik
Lahiri, Annesha
author_facet Chakrabarti, Bikramjit
Basu-Roy, Somapriya
Kar, Sanjay Kumar
Das, Sounik
Lahiri, Annesha
author_sort Chakrabarti, Bikramjit
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study is intended to compare dose-volume parameters evaluated using different forward planning- optimization techniques, involving two applicator systems in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. It looks for the best applicator-optimization combination to fulfill recommended dose-volume objectives in different high-dose-rate (HDR) fractionation schedules. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used tandem-ring and Fletcher-style tandem-ovoid applicator in same patients in two fractions of brachytherapy. Six plans were generated for each patient utilizing 3 forward optimization techniques for each applicator used: equal dwell weight/times (‘no optimization’), ‘manual dwell weight/times’, and ‘graphical’. Plans were normalized to left point A and dose of 8 Gy was prescribed. Dose volume and dose point parameters were compared. RESULTS: Without graphical optimization, maximum width and thickness of volume enclosed by 100% isodose line, dose to 90%, and 100% of clinical target volume (CTV); minimum, maximum, median, and average dose to both rectum and bladder are significantly higher with Fletcher applicator. Even if it is done, dose to both points B, minimum dose to CTV, and treatment time; dose to 2 cc (D(2cc)) rectum and rectal point etc.; D(2cc), minimum, maximum, median, and average dose to sigmoid colon; D(2cc) of bladder remain significantly higher with this applicator. Dose to bladder point is similar (p > 0.05) between two applicators, after all optimization techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Fletcher applicator generates higher dose to both CTV and organs at risk (2 cc volumes) after all optimization techniques. Dose restriction to rectum is possible using graphical optimization only during selected HDR fractionation schedules. Bladder always receives dose higher than recommended, and 2 cc sigmoid colon always gets permissible dose. Contrarily, graphical optimization with ring applicators fulfills all dose volume objectives in all HDR fractionations practiced.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5705826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57058262017-12-04 Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators Chakrabarti, Bikramjit Basu-Roy, Somapriya Kar, Sanjay Kumar Das, Sounik Lahiri, Annesha J Contemp Brachytherapy Original Paper PURPOSE: This study is intended to compare dose-volume parameters evaluated using different forward planning- optimization techniques, involving two applicator systems in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. It looks for the best applicator-optimization combination to fulfill recommended dose-volume objectives in different high-dose-rate (HDR) fractionation schedules. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used tandem-ring and Fletcher-style tandem-ovoid applicator in same patients in two fractions of brachytherapy. Six plans were generated for each patient utilizing 3 forward optimization techniques for each applicator used: equal dwell weight/times (‘no optimization’), ‘manual dwell weight/times’, and ‘graphical’. Plans were normalized to left point A and dose of 8 Gy was prescribed. Dose volume and dose point parameters were compared. RESULTS: Without graphical optimization, maximum width and thickness of volume enclosed by 100% isodose line, dose to 90%, and 100% of clinical target volume (CTV); minimum, maximum, median, and average dose to both rectum and bladder are significantly higher with Fletcher applicator. Even if it is done, dose to both points B, minimum dose to CTV, and treatment time; dose to 2 cc (D(2cc)) rectum and rectal point etc.; D(2cc), minimum, maximum, median, and average dose to sigmoid colon; D(2cc) of bladder remain significantly higher with this applicator. Dose to bladder point is similar (p > 0.05) between two applicators, after all optimization techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Fletcher applicator generates higher dose to both CTV and organs at risk (2 cc volumes) after all optimization techniques. Dose restriction to rectum is possible using graphical optimization only during selected HDR fractionation schedules. Bladder always receives dose higher than recommended, and 2 cc sigmoid colon always gets permissible dose. Contrarily, graphical optimization with ring applicators fulfills all dose volume objectives in all HDR fractionations practiced. Termedia Publishing House 2017-10-10 2017-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5705826/ /pubmed/29204164 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2017.70677 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Termedia Sp. z o. o. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Chakrabarti, Bikramjit
Basu-Roy, Somapriya
Kar, Sanjay Kumar
Das, Sounik
Lahiri, Annesha
Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators
title Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators
title_full Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators
title_fullStr Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators
title_short Comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators
title_sort comparison of dose volume parameters evaluated using three forward planning – optimization techniques in cervical cancer brachytherapy involving two applicators
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29204164
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2017.70677
work_keys_str_mv AT chakrabartibikramjit comparisonofdosevolumeparametersevaluatedusingthreeforwardplanningoptimizationtechniquesincervicalcancerbrachytherapyinvolvingtwoapplicators
AT basuroysomapriya comparisonofdosevolumeparametersevaluatedusingthreeforwardplanningoptimizationtechniquesincervicalcancerbrachytherapyinvolvingtwoapplicators
AT karsanjaykumar comparisonofdosevolumeparametersevaluatedusingthreeforwardplanningoptimizationtechniquesincervicalcancerbrachytherapyinvolvingtwoapplicators
AT dassounik comparisonofdosevolumeparametersevaluatedusingthreeforwardplanningoptimizationtechniquesincervicalcancerbrachytherapyinvolvingtwoapplicators
AT lahiriannesha comparisonofdosevolumeparametersevaluatedusingthreeforwardplanningoptimizationtechniquesincervicalcancerbrachytherapyinvolvingtwoapplicators