Treatment planning is a trial and error process that determines optimal dwell times, dose distribution, and loading pattern for high dose rate brachytherapy. Planning systems offer a number of dose calculation methods to either normalize or optimize the radiation dose. Each method has its own characteristics for achieving therapeutic dose to mitigate cancer growth without harming contiguous normal tissues. Our aim is to propose the best suited method for planning interstitial brachytherapy. 40 cervical cancer patients were randomly selected and 5 planning methods were iterated. Graphical optimization was compared with implant geometry and dose point normalization/optimization techniques using dosimetrical and radiobiological plan quality indices retrospectively. Mean tumor control probability was similar in all the methods with no statistical significance. Mean normal tissue complication probability for bladder and rectum is 0.3252 and 0.3126 ( ), respectively, in graphical optimized plans compared to other methods. There was no significant correlation found between Conformity Index and tumor control probability when the plans were ranked according to Pearson product moment method ( ). Graphical optimization can result in maximum sparing of normal tissues. 1. Introduction Cervical cancer is a major cancer burden which constitutes number one among Indian women with relative survival rate of 48.7% [1]. EBRT followed with brachytherapy (BT) is the standard of care and an integral part of local control of the disease. Cervix carcinoma has been treated with HDR BT for more than 30 years. It has advantages in terms of local recurrence, mortality, and late complications for the clinical stages I, II and III, similar to those of Low Dose Rate therapy [2]. The present standard of care using concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy has resulted in 80–90% local control rates for early stages [3–5]. But a decline of about 67–75% is noted for advanced stages because of the local failure due to inadequate dose coverage [6–8]. Interstitial brachytherapy (ISBT) is best suited for the patients with anatomy not allowing for standard intracavitary application and wherein the disease could not be encompassed in the standard ICBT application. It can improve the dose coverage with various normalization and optimization techniques. Improved planning strategies and dose optimization can reduce normal tissue complications rate without compromising local control of the disease [9]. Clinical investigations and dosimetric comparisons in the evaluation of interstitial implants are
References
[1]
A. Nandakumar, T. Ramnath, and M. Chaturvedi, “The magnitude of cancer cervix in India,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 130, no. 3, pp. 219–221, 2009.
[2]
G. A. Viani, G. B. Manta, E. J. Stefano, and L. I. de Fendi, “Brachytherapy for cervix cancer: low-dose rate or high-dose rate brachytherapy—a meta-analysis of clinical trials,” Journal of Experimental and Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 28, no. 1, article 47, 2009.
[3]
H. M. Keys, B. N. Bundy, F. B. Stehman et al., “Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 340, no. 15, pp. 1154–1161, 1999.
[4]
B. P. C. Goksedef, C. Kunos, J. L. Belinson, and P. G. Rose, “Concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiation International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB2 cervical carcinoma,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 200, no. 2, pp. 175.e1–175.e5, 2009.
[5]
F. B. Stehman, S. Ali, H. M. Keys et al., “Radiation therapy with or without weekly cisplatin for bulky stage 1B cervical carcinoma: follow-up of a Gynecologic Oncology Group trial,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 197, no. 5, pp. 503.e1–503.e6, 2007.
[6]
P. J. Eifel, K. Winter, M. Morris et al., “Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial (RTOG) 90-01,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 872–880, 2004.
[7]
R. Pearcey, M. Brundage, P. Drouin et al., “Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 966–972, 2002.
[8]
C. W. Whitney, W. Sause, B. N. Bundy et al., “Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group Study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1339–1348, 1999.
[9]
P. K. Nandwani, R. K. Vyas, J. P. Neema, U. K. Suryanarayan, D. C. Bhavsar, and K. Jani, “Retrospective analysis of role of interstitial brachytherapy using template (MUPIT) in locally advanced gynecological malignancies,” Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 111–115, 2007.
[10]
C. Haie-Meder, A. Gerbaulet, and R. Potter, The GEC ESTRO Handbook of Brachytherapy, chapter 17, Interstitial Brachytherapy in Gynecological Cancer, 2002.
[11]
S. S. Supe, K. M. Ganesh, H. Vaithianathan, and B. N. Sankar, “Radiobiological quality of high dose rate interstitial brachytherapy treatments of carcinoma of the cervix,” Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 13–22, 2006.
[12]
B. Shwetha, M. Ravikumar, A. Katke et al., “Dosimetric comparison of various optimization techniques for high dose rate brachytherapy of interstitial cervix implants,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 225–230, 2010.
[13]
S. Jamema, S. Saju, U. Shetty, S. Pallad, D. Deshpande, and S. Shrivastava, “Dosimetric comparison of inverse optimization with geometric optimization in combination with graphical optimization for HDR prostate implants,” Journal of Medical Physics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 89–94, 2006.
[14]
H. Meertens, J. Borger, M. Steggerda, and A. Blom, “Evaluation and optimization of interstitial brachytherapy dose distribution,” in Brachytherapy from Radium to Optimization, R. F. Mould, J. J. Battermann, A. A. Martinez, and B. L. Speiser, Eds., pp. 300–306, Nucletron International, Veenendaal, The Netherlands, 1994.
[15]
“HDR micro Selectron V2 Treatment planning BPS version 14. 2/14.3—User manual,” Nucletron, The Netherlands.
[16]
A. Wu, K. Ulin, and E. S. Sternick, “A dose homogeneity index for evaluating 192Ir interstitial breast implants,” Medical Physics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 104–107, 1988.
[17]
V. Chaswal, S. Yoo, B. R. Thomadsen, and D. L. Henderson, “Multi-species prostate implant treatment plans incorporating 192Ir and 125I using a Greedy Heuristic based 3D optimization algorithm,” Medical Physics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 436–444, 2007.
[18]
T. S. Kehwar, S. F. Akber, and K. Passi, “Qualitative dosimetric and radiobiological evaluation of high—dose—rate interstitial brachytherapy implants,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 41–49, 2008.
