Vaginal dose assessment in image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer: Can we really rely on dose-point evaluation?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Elaine Johanna Limkin¹ ; ² ; Isabelle Dumas³ ; Eleonor Rivin del Campo¹ ; Cyrus Chargari¹ ; ⁴ ; Pierre Maroun¹ ; Pierre Ann&egrave ; de¹ ; Claire Petit¹ ; Thomas Seisen¹ ; Kaya Doyeux³ ; Anne Tailleur¹ ; Florent Martinetti³ ; Dimitri Lefkopoulos³ ; ⁴ ; Christine Haie-Meder¹ ; Renaud Mazeron¹ ; ⁴ ; ^{renaud.mazeron@gustaveroussy.fr" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 关键词：Image-guided adaptive brachytherapy ; Cervical cancer ; Vagina ; Doses ; Posterior&ndash ; inferior border of the pubic symphysis (PIBS)
• 刊名：Brachytherapy
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March-April 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：15
• 期：2
• 页码：169-176
• 全文大小：1252 K

文摘

Although dose–volume parameters in image-guided brachytherapy have become a standard, the use of posterior–inferior border of the pubic symphysis (PIBS) points has been recently proposed in the reporting of vaginal doses. The aim was to evaluate their pertinence.

Methods and Materials

Nineteen patients who received image-guided brachytherapy after concurrent radiochemotherapy were included. Per treatment, CT scans were performed at Days 2 and 3, with reporting of the initial dwell positions and times. Doses delivered to the PIBS points were evaluated on each plan, considering that they were representative of one-third of the treatment. The movements of the applicator according to the PIBS point were analysed.

Results

Mean prescribed doses at PIBS −2, PIBS, PIBS +2 were, respectively, 2.23 ± 1.4, 6.39 ± 6.6, and 31.85 ± 36.06 Gy. Significant differences were observed between the 5 patients with vaginal involvement and the remaining 14 at the level of PIBS +2 and PIBS: +47.60 Gy and +7.46 Gy, respectively (p = 0.023 and 0.03). The variations between delivered and prescribed doses at PIBS points were not significant. However, at International commission on radiation units and measurements rectovaginal point, the delivered dose was decreased by 1.43 ± 2.49 Gy from the planned dose (p = 0.019). The delivered doses at the four points were strongly correlated with the prescribed doses with R² ranging from 0.93 to 0.95. The movements of the applicator in regard of the PIBS point assessed with the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine coordinates were insignificant.

Conclusion

The doses evaluated at PIBS points are not impacted by intrafractional movements. PIBS and PIBS +2 dose points allow distinguishing the plans of patients with vaginal infiltration. Further studies are needed to correlate these parameters with vaginal morbidity.