Comparison of accuracy and long‐term prognosis between computed tomography‐based and magnetic resonance imaging‐based brachytherapy for cervical cancer: A meta‐analysis. Issue 1 (17th December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, Xinyu; Fan, Liwen; Yan, Wenxing; Bao, Shunchao; Liu, Linlin
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology. Volume 64:Issue 1(2020:Feb.)
• Page Start: 151
• Page End: 162
• Publication Date: 2019-12-17
• Subjects: brachytherapy -- cervical cancer -- computed tomography -- high‐risk clinical target volume -- magnetic resonance imaging; Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiology, Medical -- Australasia -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12984
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1754-9477

Abstract

Summary: High‐dose‐rate brachytherapy (HDR‐BT) has been shown to play an important role in the treatment of cervical cancer patients. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare the dose parameters and long‐term effects of MRI‐based, CT‐based and hybrid imaging (MRI/CT)‐based volumetric planning. A systematic search was conducted to identify the clinical studies of BT treatment on cervical cancer patients. After study selection, a total of 13 clinical studies were enrolled for further analysis. No obvious differences were observed among the treatment parameters and the patients included. In detail, no significant difference was observed among these three techniques of volumetric planning in the parameters of high‐risk clinical target volume (HR‐CTV), total dose of D90 or mean fraction dose of D90. Meanwhile, MRI‐based planning was superior to CT‐based treatment in the total dose D2cc to organs at risk (OAR) for the bladder, rectum and sigmoid. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed among MRI‐, CT‐ or hybrid‐based treatments with the mean fraction dose D2cc to OAR for the bladder, rectum or sigmoid. In conclusion, MRI provides good anatomical delineation of the relevant HR‐CTV and OAR, and performed better in the analyses of dose parameters compared with CT. At least one MR image is required to assess the tumour extension, with clinical findings and MRI information facilitating much more accurate CT‐based contouring.