Dosimetric evaluation of image based brachytherapy using tandem ovoid and tandem ring applicators

Publication date: January–February 2018
Source:Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy, Volume 23, Issue 1
Author(s): Ramya Rangarajan
AimThe aim of the study is to evaluate the differences in dosimetry between tandem-ovoid and tandem-ring gynaecologic brachytherapy applicators in image based brachytherapy.BackgroundTraditionally, tandem ovoid applicators were used to deliver dose to tumor in intracavitary brachytherapy. Tandem-ring, tandem-cylinder and hybrid intracavitary, interstitial applicators are also used nowadays in cervical cancer brachytherapy.Methods and materials100 CT datasets of cervical cancer patients (stage IB2 – IIIB) receiving HDR application (50 tandem-ovoid and 50 tandem-ring) were studied. Brachytherapy was delivered using a CT-MRI compatible tandem-ovoid (50 patients) and a tandem-ring applicator (50 patients). DVHs were calculated and D2cc was recorded for the bladder and rectum and compared with the corresponding ICRU point doses. The point B dose, the treated volume, high dose volume and the treatment time were recorded and compared for the two applicators.ResultsThe mean D2cc of the bladder with TR applicator was 6.746Gy. TO applicator delivered a mean D2cc of 7.160Gy to the bladder. The mean ICRU bladder points were 5.60 and 5.63Gy for TR and TO applicator, respectively. The mean D2cc of the rectum was 4.04Gy and 4.79Gy for TR and TO applicators, respectively. The corresponding ICRU point doses were 5.10Gy and 5.66Gy, respectively.ConclusionsThe results indicate that the OAR doses assessed by DVH criteria were higher than ICRU point doses for the bladder with both tandem-ovoid and tandem-ring applicators whereas DVH based dose was lower than ICRU dose for the rectum. The point B dose, the treated volume and high dose volume was found to be slightly higher with the tandem-ovoid applicator. The mean D2cc dose for the bladder and rectum was lower with tandem-ring applicators. The clinical implication of the above dosimetric differences needs to be evaluated further.



http://ift.tt/2HGdFGC