RESUMO
PURPOSE: Interstitial brachytherapy (IBT) is used as an alternative to intracavitary radiotherapy in the management of cervical carcinoma. We have devised a new technique called interstitial brachytherapy guided intensity modulated radiotherapy (IBGIMRT) which can potentially reduce doses to organs at risk (OaRs). It utilizes IMRT planning on the target volume (TV) defined by implantation of IBT needles. This study compares the dosimetry of IBT and IBGIMRT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT scan images of 18 patients with cervical cancer, who have been already treated by HDR-BT, were used to generate two rival plans, IBT and IBGIMRT, for a prescription dose of 10 Gy. Following dosimetric factors were used for comparison: volume receiving 95% of prescription dose (V95), conformity index (COIN) and external volume index (EI) for target and for OaR, dose received by volume of 1 cm3 (D1cc), 2 cm3 (D2cc), 5 cm3 (D5cc) and also volume receiving 50% and 75% of prescription dose (V50 and V75). RESULTS: The two plans resulted in COIN difference of 49.8% (p < 0.0001) and EI difference of 36.4% (p < 0.0028) in favor of IBGIMRT. Mean D1cc, D2cc and D5cc values for bladder were 8.3 Gy, 7.6 Gy and 6.4 Gy; and 7.8 Gy, 7.3 Gy and 5.8 Gy with IBT and IBGIMRT, respectively (p > 0.05). Similar figures for rectum with IBT vs. IBGIMRT were 11.2 Gy vs. 7.02 Gy, 10.5 Gy vs. 6.4 Gy and 9.1 Gy vs. 4.8 Gy respectively (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our novel technique, IBGIMRT, has shown its dosimetric superiority and therefore needs to be studied in clinical set up.
RESUMO
This study is aimed to evaluate the impact of static and dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery techniques planned with Eclipse TPS on the integral dose to the healthy normal tissue surrounding the tumor-bearing area and to the volume receiving doses < 5 Gy in patients with carcinoma nasopharynx treated with Simultaneous Integrated Boost IMRT (SIB-IMRT). Ten patients with carcinoma nasopharynx were chosen for this dosimetric study. IMRT plans were generated with 6X using dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) and static multileaf collimator (SMLC) with 5, 10 and 15 intensity levels (L). Integral dose, volume receiving 5 Gy, number of monitor units (MU) is compared against DMLC. The mean difference in the MU delivered per fraction between 5, 10 and 15 L SMLC and DMLC was -13.25% (P < 0.001, with paired t test), -11.82% (P < 0.001) and -10.81% (P < 0.001), respectively. The mean difference in the integral dose with 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC was -2.96% (P < 0.001), -2.67% (P = 0.016) and -0.39% (P = 0.430), respectively. However, the difference in low-dose volume (V5Gy) was statistically insignificant with mean difference of 0.60% (P = 0.23), 1.18% (P = 0.017) and 1.70% (P = 0.078), respectively for 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC. Our results show that while choosing the IMRT delivery technique using conventional MLC the concerns about integral dose and volume receiving very low doses such as 5 Gy can be ignored.