Comparison of conventional and CT-based planning for intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer: target volume coverage and organs at risk doses

• Main Authors: Yavuz Melek, Pehlivan Berrin, Topkan Erkan, Arslan Gungor, Onal Cem, Oymak Ezgi, Yavuz Aydin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2009-07-01
• Series: Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
• Online Access: http://www.jeccr.com/content/28/1/95

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To compare intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) planning methods for cervical cancer, based on either orthogonal radiographs (conventional plan) or CT sections (CT plan); the comparison focused on target volume coverage and dose volume analysis of organs at risk (OARs), by representing point doses defined by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurement (ICRU) and dose volume histograms (DVHs) from 3D planning.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed the dosimetric data for 62 conventional and CT-based ICBT plans. The gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR)s were contoured on the CT-plan. Point A and ICRU 38 rectal and bladder points were defined on reconstructed CT images.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients were categorized on the basis of whether the >95% isodose line of the point-A prescription dose encompassed the CTV (group 1, n = 24) or not (group 2, n = 38). The mean GTV and CTV (8.1 cc and 20.6 cc) were smaller in group 1 than in group 2 (24.7 cc and 48.4 cc) (<it>P <</it>0.001). The mean percentage of GTV and CTV coverage with the 7 Gy isodose was 93.1% and 88.2% for all patients, and decreased with increasing tumor size and stage. The mean D2 and D5 rectum doses were 1.66 and 1.42 times higher than the corresponding ICRU point doses and the mean D2 and D5 bladder doses were 1.51 and 1.28 times higher. The differences between the ICRU dose and the D2 and D5 doses were significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 for the bladder, but not for the rectum.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The CT-plan is superior to the conventional plan in target volume coverage and appropriate evaluation of OARs, as the conventional plan overestimates tumor doses and underestimates OAR doses.</p>