Jory Alanazi*, Anysja Zuchora and Leanne Berriga

Department of Radiation Therapy, King Fahad Medical City, Saudi Arabia

*Corresponding Author: Jory Alanazi, Department of Radiation Therapy, King Fahad Medical City, Saudi Arabia.

Received: February 15, 2023; Published: March 30, 2023

Abstract

Introduction: Brachytherapy treatment planning with manual technique is a common method for high-dose-rate (HDR) cervical cancer. New methods performing inverse optimization technique of the dose distribution have been developed over the recent years. The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility of an inverse optimization technique and compare it to the manual technique in terms of speed and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. The aim is to finding an optimum set of constraints that will produce an inverse optimization result. This will be comparable to a manual plan in terms of coverage for high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) with a prescribed dose; simultaneously decreasing the dose to organs at risk (OARs) and planning process duration.

Materials and Methods: Thirty cervical cancer patients treated with an HDR brachytherapy were included in this study. Each patient had three treatment plans with manual technique, of which each was developed using an inverse optimization technique by an expert treatment planner. The plans were created using the inverse technique, that has constant constraints on the maximum doses of the target volume and different constraints on OARs.

Results: The resulting dose-volume histogram (DVH) were compared for the manual and inverse technique. Following parameters were used: dose covering 90% (D90) of high-risk clinical target volume (HR CTV), HR CTV V100%, dose to point A, and doses to 2cm3 (D2cc) were recorded for rectum, bladder, sigmoid, and bowel. In addition, the total treatment time, and the sum of the total reference air kerma (TRAK) was recorded for each patient. The result shows that the mean of the D90 and V100% of the HR CTV for the inverse plan was similar to the manual plan. This wasn’t statistically significant. However, the mean dose of point A in the inverse plan was greater than the mean dose in the manual plan and this difference was statistically significant. Furthermore, inverse plan has a statistically significant reduction of the dose in the all OARs. The TRAK and the total treatment time resulting statistically significant reduction in inverse planning.

Conclusion: Inverse optimization is not inferior to manual treatment planning in terms of high-risk clinical target volume (HR CTV) dose coverage, and offers excellent sparing of organs at risk structures (OARs). The planning time for Inverse optimization is faster than manual plan.

 Keywords: Brachytherapy; Cervical Cancer; Inverse Optimization; Treatment Planning

References

1. BHATLA N., et al. “Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri”. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 145 (2019): 129-135.
2. BORTFELD T. “Optimized planning using physical objectives and constraints”. Seminars in Radiation Oncology (1999): 20-34.
3. CHAJON E., et al. “Inverse planning approach for 3-D MRI-based pulse-dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy in cervix cancer”. International Journal of Radiation Oncology 69 (2007): 955-961.
4. DEWITT KD., et al. “3D inverse treatment planning for the tandem and ovoid applicator in cervical cancer”. International Journal of Radiation Oncology 63 (2005): 1270-1274.
5. FERRIGNO R., et al. “High-doserate brachytherapy in the treatment of uterine cervix cancer. Analysis of dose effectiveness and late complications”. International Journal of Radiation Oncology 50.5 (2001): 1123-1135.
6. GEORG D., et al. “Inverse planning-a comparative intersystem and interpatient constraint study”. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 18.2 (2006): 473-480.
7. HAIE-MEDER C., 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”. Radiotherapy and Oncology 74 (2005): 235-245.
8. HALL E and GIACCIA A. “Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 6^th edition”. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. In: Philadelphia (2006).
9. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements: ICRU Report No.38. “Dose and Volume Specification for Reporting Intracavitary Therapy in Gynaecology”. Bethesda, MD: ICRU (1985).
10. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements: ICRU Report No. 89. “Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Brachytherapy for Cancer of the Cervix”. SWAMIDAS, J. and MAHANTSHETTY, U: ICRU (2017).
11. JAMEMA SV., et al. “Comparison of DVH parameters and loading patterns of standard loading, manual and inverse optimization for intracavitary brachytherapy on a subset of tandem/ovoid cases”. Radiotherapy and Oncology 97 (2010): 501-506.
12. KHAN FM and GIBBONS JP. “Khan's the physics of radiation therapy”. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins (2014).
13. YOSHIO K., et al. “New inverse planning technology for image-guided cervical cancer brachytherapy: description and evaluation within a clinical frame”. Radiotherapy and Oncology 93 (2009): 331-340.
14. MEREDITH W. “Dosage distribution and dosage in carcinoma of the uterine cervix”. Radiology 54 (1950): 386-391.
15. MONTEMAGGI P., et al. “Brachytherapy: An International Perspective”. Springer (2016).
16. PALMQVIST T., et al. “Radiobiological treatment planning evaluation of inverse planning simulated annealing for cervical cancer high-dose-rate brachytherapy”. Anticancer Research 35 (2015): 935-939.
17. PÖTTER R., et al. “Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy-3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology”. Radiotherapy and Oncology 78 (2006): 6777.
18. POULIOT J., et al. “Advanced 3D planning”. Brachytherapy Physics. Madison: Medical Physics Publishing (2005): 393-414.
19. RIVARD MJ., et al. “Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations”. Medical Physics 31.3 (2004): 633-674.
20. SWAMIDAS J and MAHANTSHETTY U. “ICRU report 89: prescribing, recording, and reporting brachytherapy for cancer of the cervix”. Journal of Medical Physics 42 (2017): 48.
21. TANDERUP K., et al. “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”. Radiotherapy and Oncology 94 (2010): 173-180.
22. LESSARD E., et al. “Inverse planning for interstitial gynecologic template brachytherapy: truly anatomy-based planning”. International Journal of Radiation Oncology 54 (2002): 1243-1251.

Citation

Citation: Jory Alanazi., et al. “Comparison of Dose-Volume Histograms in Intracavitary Brachytherapy of Cervical Cancer using Manual Plan and Inverse Optimization Technique”.Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 7.4 (2023): 205-217.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Jory Alanazi., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.