Inter-fractional variation of markers and applicators in single-implant high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for gynecologic malignancies

Proton Arc Therapy vs Interstitial HDR Brachytherapy in Gynecologic Cancer with Parametrial/pelvic Side Wall Extension

Purpose

To investigate whether volumetric-modulated proton arc therapy (VPAT) plans generate comparable doses to organs at risk (OARs) compared with interstitial high–dose-rate (iHDR) brachytherapy for patients with gynecologic cancer with disease extension to parametrial/pelvic side wall, who are not eligible for the aggressive procedure.

Materials and Methods

VPAT delivers proton arc beams by modulated energies at the beam nozzle while maintaining the same incident energy to the gantry during the arc rotation. Plans of 10 patients previously treated with iHDR brachytherapy for high-risk clinical treatment volumes (HRCTV; 31.8–110.6 cm³; lateral dimensions, 4.2–5.6 cm) were selected and compared with VPAT plans. VPAT plans for each patient were designed using a 152- to 245-MeV range of energy-modulated proton beams.

Results

HRCTV coverage of the VPAT plans was comparable to that of the iHDR plans, with V150% showing no statistical differences. On average, the V100% and V90% of VPAT plans were higher than those of the iHDR plans, 95.0% vs 91.9% (P = .02) and 98.6% vs 97.5% (P = .02), respectively. D100 was also 17% higher for the VPAT plans (P = .03). On average, the D_2cm³ of bladder, rectum, and small bowels in the VPAT plans were considerably lower than those in iHDR plans (by 17.4%, 35.2%, and 65.6%, respectively; P < .05 for all OARs).

Conclusion

VPAT–generated plans were dosimetrically superior to those with HDR brachytherapy with interstitial needles for locally advanced gynecologic cancer with parametrial/pelvic side wall disease extension. Dosimetrically, VPAT provides a noninvasive alternative to iHDR brachytherapy with a superior dosimetric profile.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for locally advanced cervical cancer: Oncological outcome and toxicity analysis of 4 fractionation schemes

PURPOSE

Brachytherapy (BT) boost after radio-chemotherapy (RCT) is a standard of care in the management of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). As there is no consensus on high-dose-rate (HDR) BT fractionation schemes, our aim was to report the oncological outcome and toxicity profile of four different schemes using twice-a-day (BID) HDR-BT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single institution study for patients with LACC receiving a HDR-BT boost. The latter was performed with a single implant and single imaging done on day 1. The different fractionation schemes were: 7 Gy + 4x3.5 Gy (group 1); 7 Gy + 4x4.5 Gy (group 2); 3x7Gy (group 3) and 3x8Gy (group 4). Local (LFS), nodal (NFS) and metastatic (MFS) recurrence-free survival as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Acute (≤6 months) and late toxicities (>6 months) were reported.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2018, 191 patients were included. Median follow-up was 57 months [45-132] and median EQD210D90CTVHR was 84, 82 and 90 Gy for groups 2, 3 and 4 respectively (dosimetric data missing for group 1). The 5-year LFS, NFS, MFS, PFS and OS were 85% [81-90], 83% [79-86], 70% [67-73], 61% [57-64] and 75% [69-78] respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. EQD210D90CTVHR < 85 Gy was a prognostic factor for local recurrence in univariate analysis (p = 0.045). The rates of acute/late grade ≥ 2 urinary, digestive and gynecological toxicities were 9%/15%, 3%/15% and 9%/25% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Bi-fractionated HDR-BT boost seems feasible with good oncological outcome and slightly more toxicity after dose escalation.

Comparison of the Dosimetric Influence of Applicator Displacement on 2D and 3D Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer Treatment

To compare the dosimetric influence of applicator displacement on two-dimensional brachytherapy (2D-BT) and three-dimensional brachytherapy (3D-BT) for cervical cancer. Nineteen patients who received computed tomography-guided tandem-and-ovoid (T&O) brachytherapy were retrospectively selected. Both 2D (point-based) and 3D (volume-based) plans with and without virtual applicator displacement in the 3 axes were created for each patient. Dose changes at point A, D₉₀ of the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and intermediate-risk CTV (IR-CTV), and the D_0.1cc, D_1cc, D_2cc, and D_5cc of organs-at-risk (OARs) caused by applicator displacement were evaluated. Both 2D-BT and 3D-BT plans were sensitive to T&O applicator displacement. The D₉₀ of the CTV and the dose at point A were very sensitive to applicator displacement in the right–left direction (X-axis). An applicator shift of >2 mm in the X-axis resulted in a change of >5% in the dose at point A and D₉₀ of HR-CTV and IR-CTV. In addition, the doses to the OARs were mostly affected by applicator displacement in the anterior–posterior direction (Z-axis). A displacement of <1.5 mm in the Z-axis was required to avoid a dose change of >10% for OARs. For both 2D-BT and 3D-BT plans, T&O displacement greater than  ± 2 mm in the X-axis or T&O applicator displacement  ± 1.5 mm in the Z-axis resulted in significant dose changes to the tumor and OARs. In comparison with 3D-BT plans, 2D-BT plans delivered a higher dose to the tumor, and the OARs received more undesirable doses when applicator displacement occurred. The influence of applicator displacement on the doses to the tumor and OARs differed between 2D-BT and 3D-BT. Physicians should take individual patient differences into account when selecting a brachytherapy plan to mitigate the influence of applicator displacement.