• In Bong Ha, Bae Kwon Jeong, Ki Mun Kang, Hojin Jeong, Yun Hee Lee, Hoon Sik Choi, Jong Hak Lee, Won Jun Choi, Jeong Kyu Shin, and Jin Ho Song.
• Department of Radiation Oncology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea.
• J. Korean Med. Sci. 2018 Apr 30; 33 (18): e135.

BackgroundAlthough intracavitary radiotherapy (ICR) is essential for the radiation therapy of cervical cancer, few institutions in Korea perform 3-dimensional (3D)-based ICR. To identify patients who would benefit from 3D-based ICR, dosimetric parameters for tumor targets and organs at risk (OARs) were compared between 2-dimensional (2D)- and 3D-based ICR.MethodsTwenty patients with locally advanced cervical cancer who underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) following 3D-based ICR were retrospectively evaluated. New 2D-based plans based on the Manchester system were developed. Tumor size was measured by magnetic resonance imaging.ResultsThe mean high risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) D90 value was about 10% lower for 2D- than for 3D-based plans (88.4% vs. 97.7%; P = 0.068). Tumor coverage did not differ between 2D- and 3D-based plans in patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm at the time of brachytherapy, but the mean HR-CTV D90 values in patients with tumors > 4 cm were significantly higher for 3D-based plans than for 2D-based plans (96.0% vs. 78.1%; P = 0.017). Similar results were found for patients with tumors > 5 cm initially. Other dosimetric parameters for OARs were similar between 2D- and 3D-based plans, except that mean sigmoid D2cc was higher for 2D- than for 3D-based plans (67.5% vs. 58.8%; P = 0.043).ConclusionThese findings indicate that 3D-based ICR plans improve tumor coverage while satisfying the dose constraints for OARs. 3D-based ICR should be considered in patients with tumors > 4 cm size at the time of brachytherapy or > 5 cm initially.

22 keywords...

hide…