RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare TRAK & TPS based isodose volumes in cervical cancer brachytherapy and assess the feasibility, accuracy and potential future implications of TRAK in this regard and as a newer emerging tool to assess treatment intensity in cervical cancer brachytherapy. METHODS: one hundred patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma of cervix uteri were assessed for brachytherapy (after completion of external radiation) and prospectively enrolled for the study. 60 Gy, 75 Gy, and 85 Gy isodose volumes were obtained from the TPS (VTPS) for 50, 25 & 25 patients with Manchester, Fletcher & interstitial implant respectively, receiving various fractionation schedules by Ir192 HDR remote after-loading system. Using the formula Vpred=4965(TRAK/dref)3/2+170(TRAK/dref)-1.5 the TRAK based isodose surface volumes (Vpred) were derived. Reference doses (dref) were calculated based on accumulated EBRT and brachytherapy doses. The two sets of volume were compared with respect to applicator type, standard, and optimised plan. Surrogate point A dose was also correlated. RESULT: VTPS - Vpred were 5.24 ± 2.7%, all volumes being predicted within 10%. Correlation of TRAK vs VTPS60/ VTPS75/ VTPS85 showed R2 of 0.994, 0.987 and 0.971 respectively. There was no significant difference in predicted volumes with respect to applicator type. The surrogate point A showed mean volume and standard deviation of 7.44 ± 13.4%, 17.63 ± 16.38 and 3.5 ± 0.95 for Manchester optimised, Fletcher optimised and standard plans respectively. TRAK with point A (R2=0.5632), bladder (R2=0.2015) and rectal doses (R2=0.121) yielded no correlation. CONCLUSION: Volumes calculated by TRAK correlate with TPS obtained volumes significantly and the formula predicting isodose surface volumes within 10% accuracy for ICBT applications and not for pure interstitial implants. However, TRAK fails to correlate with surrogate point A, bladder and rectal doses hence has questionable utility as a marker for biological response & treatment intensity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: Dosimetic comparison of manual forward planning(MFP) with inverse planning(IP) for interstitial brachytherapy(ISBT) in cervical carcinoma. BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy planning by MFP is more reliable but time-consuming method, whereas IP has been explored more often for its ease and rapidness. The superiority of either is yet to be established. METHODOLOGY: Two plans were created on data sets of 24 patients of cervical carcinoma who had undergone ISBT, one by MFP with uniform dwell times and another IP on BrachyVision 13.7 planning system with a dose prescription of 600 cGy. Isodose shaper was used for improving conformity & homogeneity. Dosimetric parameters for target and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded. Conformity index (COIN), dose homogeneity index (DHI), overdose index (OI), Coverage index (CI) and dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) were calculated. RESULTS: Mean high risk clinical target volume: 73.05(±20.7)cc, D90: 5.51 Gy vs. 5.6 Gy (p = 0.017), V100: 81.77 % vs. 83.74 % (p = 0.002), V150: 21.7 % vs. 24.93 % (p = 0.002), V200: 6.3 % vs. 6.4 % (p=0.75) for IP and MFP, respectively. CI: 0.81(IP) and 0.83(MFP) (p = 0.003); however, COIN was 0.79 for both plans. D2cc of OARs was statistically better with IP (bladder 54.7 % vs. 56.1 %, p = 0.03; rectum 63 % vs. 64.7 %, (p = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: Both MFP and IP are equally acceptable dosimetrically. With higher dose achieved to the target, for a similar OAR dose, MFP provides greater user flexibility of dwell positions within the target as well as better optimization. Isodose shaper may be carefully used for fine tuning. Larger sample sizes and clinical correlation will better answer the superiority of one over the other.

RESUMEN

In the past few decades, concurrent chemoradiation has conclusively been established as the standard of care in resectable, locally advanced head and neck cancer. Platins until now have been the established radiosensitizer in all concurrent settings, including postoperative high-risk scenarios. However, retrospective and evolving data suggest that they have their limitations in terms of compatibility, toxicity, and intrinsic resistance. There is therefore the need to explore the scope of other agents that may address these issues through a different mode of action, a better toxicity profile, or preferably a combination of both. In recent years, taxanes have emerged as an effective chemotherapeutic agent for head and neck cancer for recurrent or metastatic disease and chemoinduction for downstaging before definitive treatment. In this article, the authors review the potential of taxanes as an alternative to platins in the concurrent setting.

Asunto(s)