Dosimetric comparison of manual forward planning with uniform dwell times versus volume-based inverse planning in interstitial brachytherapy of cervical malignancies

Abstract

Aim

Dosimetic comparison of manual forward planning(MFP) with inverse planning(IP) for interstitial brachytherapy(ISBT) in cervical carcinoma.

Background

Brachytherapy planning by MFP is more reliable but time-consuming method, whereas IP has been explored more often for its ease and rapidness. The superiority of either is yet to be established.

Methodology

Two plans were created on data sets of 24 patients of cervical carcinoma who had undergone ISBT, one by MFP with uniform dwell times and another IP on BrachyVision 13.7 planning system with a dose prescription of 600 cGy. Isodose shaper was used for improving conformity & homogeneity. Dosimetric parameters for target and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded. Conformity index (COIN), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose index (OI), Coverage index (CI) and dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) were calculated.

Results

Mean high risk clinical target volume: 73.05(±20.7)cc, D90: 5.51 Gy vs. 5.6 Gy (p = 0.017), V100: 81.77 % vs. 83.74 % (p = 0.002), V150: 21.7 % vs. 24.93 % (p = 0.002), V200: 6.3 % vs. 6.4 % (p=0.75) for IP and MFP, respectively. CI: 0.81(IP) and 0.83(MFP) (p = 0.003); however, COIN was 0.79 for both plans. D2cc of OARs was statistically better with IP (bladder 54.7 % vs. 56.1 %, p = 0.03; rectum 63 % vs. 64.7 %, (p = 0.0008).

Conclusion

Both MFP and IP are equally acceptable dosimetrically. With higher dose achieved to the target, for a similar OAR dose, MFP provides greater user flexibility of dwell positions within the target as well as better optimization. Isodose shaper may be carefully used for fine tuning. Larger sample sizes and clinical correlation will better answer the superiority of one over the other.