Vol 27, No 2 (2022)
Research paper
Published online: 2022-03-17

open access

Page views 4432
Article views/downloads 228
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Optimization of catheter’s implementation in the mold, in the case of vaginal HDR brachytherapy treatment

Mirna Samir Jreij1, Ali El Ahmar1, Jamal Charara1
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2022;27(2):275-280.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare results obtained in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatment of vaginal cancer. Different catheters distributions inside the custom mold were explored. The difference between those distributions is the position of the posterior catheter located near the rectum in the actual custom mold applicator used in different hospitals, each one having a catheter displacement of 0.5 which is equal to the length of a step position. The best catheters distribution offering an optimal dose distribution: better coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV), while reducing the dose received by organs at risk (OARs), were discussed.

Materials and methods: A group of 60 patients treated with HDR brachytherapy, alone or in combination with external radiotherapy, was investigated. A custom mold is normally used for HDR brachytherapy vaginal cancer treatment. Three different geometrical positions of the catheters (G1, G2 and G3) and, consequently, 3 different dosimetries were simulated out for each patient on the CT images, using the Oncentra planning system. The coverage of the CTV was studied.

Results: The average volume treated was 30.46 cc (min = 9.8 cc, max = 70.86 cc). The total prescribed dose, including external and internal radiotherapy, was 80 Gy. We evaluated conformity index (CI), dose homogeneity index (DHI) and conformality index (COIN) indices for the three implantation geometries to reach the same coverage criteria of the CTV.

The D2cc parameter allowed the evaluation of the dose received by the OARs. For the rectum, a dose reduction of 9.67% (range 0.29–32.86) was obtained with the second geometry of implantation compared to 10.14% (range 1.43–28.33) with the third geometry. For the bladder, the second geometry of implantation showed a better preservation for this organ [15.93% (range 0.86–58.71) vs. 8.35% (range 0.33–30.43) with the third geometry]. The sigmoid was more protected using the second plan of implantation as well [6.33% (range 0.14–40.71) for the second implantation compared to 5.95% (range 0.33–36) for the third implantation].

Conclusions: G2 and G3 catheters’ distribution, having catheter position farther from the mold wall and so from the vaginal wall compared to the catheter position applied showed a better protection for the OARs while giving the same prescribed dose for the CTV.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Henschke U, Hilaris B, Mahan GD. Remote Afterloading with Intracavitary Applicators. Radiology. 1964; 83(2): 344–345.
  2. Henschke UK, Hilaris BS, Mahan GD. Intracavitary radiation therapy of cancer of the uterine cervix by remote afterloading with cycling sources. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1966; 96(1): 45–51.
  3. Haie-Meder C, Dumas I, Mazeron R, et al. Curiethérapie tridimensionnelle integrant l'image (en particulier l'IRM) dans la prise en charge des patientes porteuses d'un cancer du col utérin. Lett Cancer. 2011; 20(8): 509–512.
  4. Beriwal S, Heron DE, Mogus R, et al. High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDRB) for primary or recurrent cancer in the vagina. Radiat Oncol. 2008; 3: 7.
  5. Greven K, Olds W. Isolated vaginal recurrences of endometrial adenocarcinoma and their management. Cancer. 1987; 60(3): 419–421, doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19870801)60:3<419::aid-cncr2820600323>3.0.co;2-a.
  6. Barakat R, Goldman N, Patel D, et al. Pelvic Exenteration for Recurrent Endometrial Cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 75(1): 99–102.
  7. Poortmans P, Bartelink H, Horiot JC, et al. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Groups. The influence of the boost technique on local control in breast conserving treatment in the EORTC 'boost versus no boost' randomised trial. Radiother Oncol. 2004; 72(1): 25–33.
  8. Hoskin PJ, Rojas AM, Bownes PJ, et al. Randomised trial of external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2012; 103(2): 217–222.
  9. Ferre M, Courdi A, Hannoun J. Dose Gradient Impact on Biological Equivalent Dose for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation using High Dose Rate Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72(1): S526.
  10. Mock U, Kucera H, Fellner C, et al. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy with or without external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of primary vaginal carcinoma: Long-term results and side effects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 56(4): 950–957.
  11. Petignat P, Jolicoeur M, Alobaid A, et al. Salvage treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy for isolated vaginal endometrial cancer recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 101(3): 445–449.
  12. Petereit D, Edwards S, Thomadsen B, et al. Standardized treatment planning for high dose rate vaginal cuff brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Investig. 1995; 3(4): 196–203.
  13. Bahadur YA, Constantinescu C, Hassouna AH, et al. Single versus multichannel applicator in high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy optimized by inverse treatment planning. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2015; 6(4): 362–370.
  14. Tanderup K, Lindegaard JC. Multi-channel intracavitary vaginal brachytherapy using three-dimensional optimization of source geometry. Radiother Oncol. 2004; 70(1): 81–85.
  15. Shin SM, Duckworth TL, Cooper BT, et al. Use of a Flexible Inflatable Multi-Channel Applicator for Vaginal Brachytherapy in the Management of Gynecologic Cancer. Front Oncol. 2015; 5: 201.
  16. Magné N, Chargari C, SanFilippo N, et al. Technical aspects and perspectives of the vaginal mold applicator for brachytherapy of gynecologic malignancies. Brachytherapy. 2010; 9(3): 274–277.
  17. El Khoury C, Dumas I, Tailleur A, et al. Adjuvant brachytherapy for endometrial cancer: advantages of the vaginal mold technique. Brachytherapy. 2015; 14(1): 51–55.
  18. Jreij M, Kattar ZAl, Charara J. Comparaison entre Stump Cylinder et moule personnalisé, effet de la forme de l’applicateur sur la distribution de dose. Cancer/Radiother. 2020; 24(2): 106–113.
  19. Beriwal S, Demanes DJ, Erickson B, et al. American Brachytherapy Society. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for interstitial brachytherapy for vaginal cancer. Brachytherapy. 2012; 11(1): 68–75.
  20. Pötter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Limbergen E, et al. GEC ESTRO Working Group. Recommendations from gynaecological (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(1): 67–77.
  21. Major T, Fröhlich G, Polgar C. Assessment of dose homogeneity in conformal interstitial breast brachytherapy with special respect to ICRU recommendations. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2011; 3(3): 150–155.
  22. Prabhakar R. Dose volume uniformity index: a simple tool for treatment plan evaluation in brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachyther. 2010; 2: 71–75.
  23. Miettinen K. Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston 1999.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy