Patient's specific integration of OAR doses (D2 cc) from EBRT and 3D image‐guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. (19th January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gelover, Edgar; Katherine, Cabel; Mart, Christopher; Sun, Wenqing; Kim, Yusung
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 2(2018)
• Page Start: 83
• Page End: 92
• Publication Date: 2018-01-19
• Subjects: generalized equivalent uniform dose -- HDR plan evaluation -- high dose rate brachytherapy -- OAR doses -- overall D2 cc dose; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12247
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this study was to assess the recommended DVH parameter (e.g., D2 cc) addition method used for combining EBRT and HDR plans, against a reference dataset generated from an EQD2‐based DVH addition method. A revised DVH parameter addition method using EBRT DVH parameters derived from each patient's plan was proposed and also compared with the reference dataset. Thirty‐one biopsy‐proven cervical cancer patients who received EBRT and HDR brachytherapy were retrospectively analyzed. A parametrial and/or paraaortic EBRT boost were clinically performed on 13 patients. Ten IMRT and 21 3DCRT plans were determined. Two different HDR techniques for each HDR plan were analyzed. Overall D2 cc and D0.1 cc OAR doses in EQD2 were statistically analyzed for three different DVH parameter addition methods: a currently recommended method, a proposed revised method, and a reference DVH addition method. The overall D2 ccEQD 2 values for all rectum, bladder, and sigmoid for a conformal, volume optimization HDR plan generated using the current DVH parameter addition method were significantly underestimated on average −5 to −8% when compared to the values obtained from the reference DVH addition technique ( P < 0.01). The revised DVH parameter addition method did not present statistical differences with the reference technique ( P > 0.099). When PM boosts were considered, there was an even greater average underestimation of −8~−10% for overall OAR doses of conformal HDR plans when using the current DVH parameter addition technique as compared to the revised DVH parameter addition. No statistically significant differences were found between the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques ( P > 0.3148). It is recommended that the overall D2 cc EBRT doses are obtained from each patient's EBRT plan.