Cargando…

Comparative analysis of image-guided adaptive interstitial brachytherapy and intensity-modulated arc therapy versus conventional treatment techniques in cervical cancer using biological dose summation

PURPOSE: To compare image-guided adaptive interstitial brachytherapy (BT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with conventional treatment techniques in cervical cancer using an alternative biological dose summation method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Initially, 21 interstitial BT and IMAT plans of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fröhlich, Georgina, Vízkeleti, Júlia, Nguyen, Anhhong Nhung, Major, Tibor, Polgár, Csaba
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6431106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30911313
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2019.82999
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare image-guided adaptive interstitial brachytherapy (BT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with conventional treatment techniques in cervical cancer using an alternative biological dose summation method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Initially, 21 interstitial BT and IMAT plans of patients with cervical cancer were included and additional plans were created (inverse optimized interstitial, optimized intracavitary, non-optimized intracavitary BT plans, and conformal external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]). The most exposed volume of critical organs in BT were identified manually on EBRT CT images. Biological total doses (EQD2) were calculated and compared between each combination of BT and EBRT plans. This method was compared with uniform dose conception (UDC) in IMAT and conformal EBRT plans. RESULTS: The D(90) of high-risk CTV and D(2) of bladder and sigmoid were different in BT techniques only: p = 0.0149, < 0.001, < 0.001, respectively. The most advantageous values were obtained in the interstitial treatment plans and inverse optimized interstitial plans did not differ dosimetrically from these, while optimized intracavitary plans resulted in worse dose-volume parameters, and the worst of all were intracavitary plans without optimization. The D(2) of rectum was significantly lower with IMAT than with conformal EBRT plans (p = 0.037) and showed the same trend in BT plans as the other parameters (p < 0.001). The UDC dose summation method overestimated D(2) of bladder, rectum, and sigmoid (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Although optimization improves the quality of conventional BT plans, interstitial plans produce significantly higher dose coverage of high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and lower doses to organs at risk (OARs). IMAT plans decrease the dose to the rectum. UDC overestimates OARs doses.