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

<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

Brachytherapy for cervix cancer: low-dose rate or high-dose rate brachytherapy – a meta-analysis of clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The literature supporting high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR) in the treatment of cervical carcinoma derives primarily from retrospective series. However, controversy still persists regarding the efficacy and safety of HDR brachytherapy compared to low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, in particular, due to inadequate tumor coverage for stage III patients. Whether LDR or HDR brachytherapy produces better results for these patients in terms of survival rate, local control rate and the treatment complications remain controversial.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis of RCT was performed comparing LDR to HDR brachytherapy for cervix cancer treated for radiotherapy alone. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases, as well as abstracts published in the annual proceedings were systematically searched. We assessed methodological quality for each outcome by grading the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We used "recommend" for strong recommendations, and "suggest" for weak recommendations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pooled results from five randomized trials (2,065 patients) of HDR brachytherapy in cervix cancer showed no significant increase of mortality (p = 0.52), local recurrence (p = 0.68), or late complications (rectal; p = 0.7, bladder; p = 0.95 or small intestine; p = 0.06) rates as compared to LDR brachytherapy. In the subgroup analysis no difference was observed for overall mortality and local recurrence in patients with clinical stages I, II and III. The quality of evidence was low for mortality and local recurrence in patients with clinical stage I, and moderate for other clinical stages.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our meta-analysis shows that there are no differences between HDR and LDR for overall survival, local recurrence and late complications for clinical stages I, II and III. By means of the GRADE system, we recommend the use of HDR for all clinical stages of cervix cancer.</p