ABSTRACT
PURPOSE
The aim of the study was to compare the dose to vaginal points between two intracavitary
applicators used for HDR brachytherapy in Carcinoma Cervix
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Patients reporting to our center for Carcinoma cervix intracavitary brachytherapy
were randomly allocated to treatment with either Manchester or Fletcher Suit Delclos
(FSD) applicator. All patients received an EBRT dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions along
with weekly Cisplatin (40 mg/m2). Brachytherapy was administered using CT based planning. All patients received a
dose of 7 Gy to Point A one week apart for a total of three fractions. For vaginal
dose reporting, the PIBS points (PIBS, PIBS+1, PIBS+2, PIBS-1, PIBS-2) and dose to
vagina at the level of ovoids was compared between the two applicators
RESULTS
A total of 30 Carcinoma cervix patients were randomly allocated to receive intracavitary
brachytherapy with either Manchester or FSD applicator. The mean vaginal reference
length for patients treated with Manchester applicator was 4.3 and for patients treated
with FSD applicator was 4.4. On analyzing dose to different vaginal points, patients
treated with Manchester applicator received significantly higher mean and median doses
to all PIBS points (except PIBS-2 cm) as compared to FSD applicator. On analyzing
dose to the upper vagina at the level of the ovoids, the Manchester applicator delivered
higher antero-posterior doses as compared to FSD applicator.
CONCLUSIONS
Manchester applicator gives higher dose to the vagina as compared to FSD applicator
for intracavitary brachytherapy in Carcinoma Cervix. The choice of using a particular
applicator depends on the residual disease at the time of brachytherapy and patient
anatomy
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to BrachytherapyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Recommendations from gynecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV.Radiother Oncol. 2005; 74: 235-245
- Recommendations from gynecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy-3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology.Radiother Oncol. 2006; 78: 67-77
- Vaginal dose point reporting in cervical cancer patients treated with combined 2D/3D external beam radiotherapy and 2D/3D brachytheraphy.Radiother Oncol. 2013; 107: 99-105
- Minicolpostats, dome cyclinders, other additions and improvements of the Fletcher-Suit after loading system: indications and limitations of their use.Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1980; 6: 1195-1206
- After loading technique for radiation therapy of carcinoma of the uterus.Radiology. 1960; 74: 834
- A dosimetric analysis of Morris, Fletcher and Henschke systems for treatment of uterine cervix carcinoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991; 21: 995-1003
- A randomized comparison of two brachytherapy devices for the treatment of uterine cervical carcinoma.Radiother Oncol. 2005; 74: 247-250
- A comparison of dose distribution from Manchester-style and Fletcher-style intracavitary brachytherapy applicator systems in cervical cancer.J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2012; 4: 213-218
- Vaginal dose of radical radiotherapy for cervical cancer in China: a multicenter study.BMC Cancer. 2019; 19: 1219
- Multicenter evaluation of novel vaginal dose reporting method in 153 cervical cancer patients.Radiother Oncol. 2016; 120: 420-442
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 28, 2021
Accepted:
September 18,
2021
Received in revised form:
September 7,
2021
Received:
May 25,
2021
Footnotes
Disclosures: All authors report no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could bias their work. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
