Cancer Of The Cervix: Dosimetric Comparisons Of Dose Prescription To Applicator Point A Versus Dose Prescription To Ctv

h gaballa,l wang,a c riegel,philip vigneri,brian p bloom,m ghaly,e marienberg,j ames,a kapur,l potters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.07.1128

2012-01-01

Abstract:To present 6 years of dosimetric experience with regards to dose specification for HDR intracavitary brachytherapy BT. This report compares 2 CT-based dose optimization techniques. The 1st technique is based on manual dwell weight optimization and prescribes to the traditional Point A, while the 2nd technique is based on graphical optimization and prescribes to the Clinical Target Volume CTV. The 2nd technique conforms to the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) Cervical Cancer Task Group guidelines where D90>100%, Rec2cc<75 Gy, Bladder2cc<95 Gy. In this study a total of 29 patients (145 procedures) received an external beam therapy course of 45 Gy followed by a BT course of 30 Gy, 6.0 Gy/fx Three sets of dosimetric parameters are chosen to optimize and to compare both HDR delivery techniques. The 1st set includes CTV dose coverage D90, CTV dose conformance (V90,-V90,CTV)/VCTV), and CTV dose inhomogeneity V150 /VCTV and V200./VCTV. The 2nd set includes the dose delivered to the critical organs OAR (Rec2cc, Sigmoid2cc, and Bladder2cc), while the last set includes the total loading in Air Kerma per target volume. Eighty-three procedures are delivered based on the first technique, while the other 62 procedures are based on the 2nd technique. In order to enhance the comparison between both delivery techniques all procedures that belong to the 1st set but did not meet the ABS guidelines in terms of CTV dose coverage or OAR dose limits were recalculated using the 2nd technique. Results are presented and comparisons are made based on both the physical doses as well as the equivalent biological doses, where the ABS EQD2 worksheets are used. All parameters are normalized to the prescription of 6.0 Gy/fx for the physical doses and 8.0 Gy/fx for their equivalent biological values. The Table demonstrates the advantages of the 2nd technique in terms of the statistical averages of the listed parameters. More importantly by applying the 1st technique, 37 procedures failed to meet the ABS guidelines instead the D90<90%, and/or Rec2cc>80%, and/or bladder2cc>95%. When the 2nd technique is applied, 25 of the 37 procedures met or exceeded ABS guidelines. The results show that with dose prescription to CTV the guidelines of the ABS can be efficiently and consistently achieved. Based on this work, future studies will focus on further development of the inverse planning approach.Poster Viewing Abstract 2552; TableAverage normalized physical and biological dosimetry ± 1 standard deviationPhys APhys CTVBiol ABiol CTVD901.02 ± 0.131.00 ± 0.041.04 ± 0.181.00 ± 0.06Sigmoid 2cc0.63 ± 0.140.58 ± 0.140.66 ± 0.230.58 ± 0.20Rectum 2cc0.74 ± 0.160.67 ± 0.110.85 ± 0.290.72 ± 0.17Bladder 2cc0.85 ± 0.150.79 ± 0.101.04 ± 0.290.92 ± 0.19(V90,-V90,CTV)/VCTV0.55 ± 0.280.43 ± 0.11N/AN/AmCi*hr/cc12.9 ± 2.911.9 ± 1.6N/AN/A Open table in a new tab