Dose optimization in gynecological 3D image based interstitial brachytherapy using martinez universal perineal interstitial template (MUPIT) -an institutional experience.

Pramod Kumar Sharma, Praveen Kumar Sharma, Jamema V Swamidas, Umesh Mahantshetty, D D Deshpande, Jayanand Manjhi, D V Rai
Author Information
  1. Pramod Kumar Sharma: Department of Medical Physics, International Oncology Center, Fortis Hospital, Noida, India ; Department of Radiation Oncology, Shobit University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  2. Praveen Kumar Sharma: Department of Radiation Oncology, International Oncology Center, Fortis Hospital, Noida, India.
  3. Jamema V Swamidas: Department of Medical Physics, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India.
  4. Umesh Mahantshetty: Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India.
  5. D D Deshpande: Department of Medical Physics, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India.
  6. Jayanand Manjhi: Department of Radiation Oncology, Shobit University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  7. D V Rai: Department of Radiation Oncology, Shobit University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dose optimization in 3D image based gynecological interstitial brachytherapy using Martinez Universal Perineal Interstitial Template (MUPIT). Axial CT image data set of 20 patients of gynecological cancer who underwent external radiotherapy and high dose rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy using MUPIT was employed to delineate clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs). Geometrical and graphical optimization were done for optimum CTV coverage and sparing of OARs. Coverage Index (CI), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose index (OI), dose non-uniformity ratio (DNR), external volume index (EI), conformity index (COIN) and dose volume parameters recommended by GEC-ESTRO were evaluated. The mean CTV, bladder and rectum volume were 137 ± 47cc, 106 ± 41cc and 50 ± 25cc, respectively. Mean CI, DHI and DNR were 0.86 ± 0.03, 0.69 ± 0.11 and 0.31 ± 0.09, while the mean OI, EI, and COIN were 0.08 ± 0.03, 0.07 ± 0.05 and 0.79 ± 0.05, respectively. The estimated mean CTV D90 was 76 ± 11Gy and D100 was 63 ± 9Gy. The different dosimetric parameters of bladder D2cc, D1cc and D0.1cc were 76 ± 11Gy, 81 ± 14Gy, and 98 ± 21Gy and of rectum/recto-sigmoid were 80 ± 17Gy, 85 ± 13Gy, and 124 ± 37Gy, respectively. Dose optimization yields superior coverage with optimal values of indices. Emerging data on 3D image based brachytherapy with reporting and clinical correlation of DVH parameters outcome is enterprizing and provides definite assistance in improving the quality of brachytherapy implants. DVH parameter for urethra in gynecological implants needs to be defined further.

Keywords

References

  1. Radiother Oncol. 2001 Jan;58(1):53-62 [PMID: 11165682]
  2. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 May 1;62(1):131-7 [PMID: 15850913]
  3. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983 Jul;9(7):1013-7 [PMID: 6863068]
  4. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Jun 15;26(3):519-27 [PMID: 8514547]
  5. Radiother Oncol. 2005 Mar;74(3):235-45 [PMID: 15763303]
  6. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jul 1;62(3):901-11 [PMID: 15936576]
  7. Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jan;90(1):48-55 [PMID: 18037181]
  8. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Jan 15;40(2):415-20 [PMID: 9457830]
  9. Med Phys. 1995 Feb;22(2):209-34 [PMID: 7565352]
  10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1984 Feb;10(2):297-305 [PMID: 6706724]
  11. J Surg Oncol. 1997 Dec;66(4):285-95 [PMID: 9425337]
  12. Brachytherapy. 2013 Nov-Dec;12(6):637-44 [PMID: 23850274]
  13. Radiother Oncol. 2002 Jan;62(1):103-11 [PMID: 11830318]
  14. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jun 1;65(2):624-30 [PMID: 16690444]
  15. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jan 1;46(1):35-43 [PMID: 10656370]
  16. J Med Phys. 2006 Apr;31(2):89-94 [PMID: 21206671]
  17. Radiother Oncol. 2004 Dec;73(3):331-7 [PMID: 15588879]
  18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Aug 1;45(1):105-12 [PMID: 10477013]
  19. J Med Phys. 2008 Jan;33(1):3-8 [PMID: 20041045]
  20. Brachytherapy. 2005;4(3):186-94 [PMID: 16182218]
  21. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Oct 1;69(2):619-27 [PMID: 17869676]
  22. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Jan 15;40(2):515-24 [PMID: 9457842]
  23. Gynecol Oncol. 1997 Dec;67(3):241-7 [PMID: 9441770]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0±0dosebrachytherapyvolumeoptimizationimageinterstitialbasedgynecologicalMUPITCTVindexparameters3DusingmeanrespectivelyDosedataexternalclinicalOARscoverageCIDHIOIDNREICOINbladder03057611GyindicesDVHimplantsaimstudyevaluateMartinezUniversalPerinealInterstitialTemplateAxialCTset20patientscancerunderwentradiotherapyhighrateHDRemployeddelineatetargetorgansriskGeometricalgraphicaldoneoptimumsparingCoverageIndexhomogeneityoverdosenon-uniformityratioconformityrecommendedGEC-ESTROevaluatedrectum13747cc10641cc5025ccMean8669113109080779estimatedD90D100639GydifferentdosimetricD2ccD1ccD01cc8114Gy9821Gyrectum/recto-sigmoid8017Gy8513Gy12437GyyieldssuperioroptimalvaluesEmergingreportingcorrelationoutcomeenterprizingprovidesdefiniteassistanceimprovingqualityparameterurethraneedsdefinedmartinezuniversalperinealtemplate-aninstitutionalexperience

Similar Articles

Cited By