Brachytherapy
Volume 7, Issue 3 , Pages 254-259, July 2008

A dosimetric comparison of two high-dose-rate brachytherapy planning systems in cervix cancer: Standardized template planning vs. computerized treatment planning

  • Hassisen Patone

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • ,
  • Luis Souhami

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. McGill University Health Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Room D5 400, 1650 Cedar Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1A4. Tel.: +1-514-934-8040; fax: +1-514-934-8392.
  • ,
  • William Parker

      Affiliations

    • Medical Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • ,
  • Michael Evans

      Affiliations

    • Medical Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • ,
  • Marie Duclos

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • ,
  • Lorraine Portelance

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Received 28 December 2007; received in revised form 29 January 2008; accepted 31 January 2008. published online 25 June 2008.

Abstract 

Purpose

High-dose-rate brachytherapy is an important component of the curative treatment for cervical cancer. Some institutions use standardized template planning (STP), based on a precalculated table of dose rates, instead of computerized treatment planning (CTP), based on digitized orthogonal X-ray films. STP can be used as a backup check in case of computer hardware malfunction, and/or as a way to minimize treatment planning time. We performed a dosimetric comparison of STP and CTP to determine dose differences at point A and the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report 38 bladder and rectal reference points.

Methods and materials

We retrospectively reviewed the treatment plans of 62 patients (135 applications) treated with a tandem and two ovoids using the CTP method. For each of these plans, we calculated the dwell times required to deliver the same prescription dose had STP been used. We also used the planning computer to vary tandem and ovoid geometry and develop a table of dose rates based on geometric parameters.

Results

The mean dose at point A was 7.6Gy using CTP, increasing to 8.4Gy when the STP approach was used (p<0.05). The mean doses at the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report 38 bladder and rectal points were both 4.5Gy with CTP and increased to 4.9 and 5.0Gy, respectively using STP (p<0.05). Our table of dose rates showed significant dose rate dependency on the applicators geometry.

Conclusions

Our study shows that if the STP approach had been used, a significantly higher dose would have been delivered, and that STP tables accounting for differences in implant geometry should be carefully considered.

Keywords: Cervical cancer, Brachytherapy, Template, Treatment planning, Dosimetry

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1538-4721(08)00553-9

doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2008.01.004

Brachytherapy
Volume 7, Issue 3 , Pages 254-259, July 2008