Evaluation of dose differences between intracavitary applicators for cervical brachytherapy using knowledge-based models.

PURPOSE

Currently, there is a lack of patient-specific tools to guide brachytherapy planning and applicator choice for cervical cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of organ-at-risk (OAR) dose predictions using knowledge-based intracavitary models, and the use of these models and clinical data to determine the dosimetric differences of tandem-and-ring (T&R) and tandem-and-ovoids (T&O) applicators.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Knowledge-based models, which predict organ D, were trained on 77/75 cases and validated on 32/38 for T&R/T&O applicators. Model performance was quantified using ΔD=D-D, with standard deviation (σ(ΔD)) representing precision. Model-predicted applicator dose differences were determined by applying T&O models to T&R cases, and vice versa, and compared to clinically-achieved D differences. Applicator differences were assessed using a Student's t-test (p < 0.05 significant).

RESULTS

Validation T&O/T&R model precision was 0.65/0.55 Gy, 0.55/0.38 Gy, and 0.43/0.60 Gy for bladder, rectum and sigmoid, respectively, and similar to training. When applying T&O/T&R models to T&R/T&O cases, bladder, rectum and sigmoid D values in EQD2 were on average 5.69/2.62 Gy, 7.31/6.15 Gy and 3.65/0.69 Gy lower for T&R, with similar HRCTV volume and coverage. Clinical data also showed lower T&R OAR doses, with mean EQD2 D deviations of 0.61 Gy, 7.96 Gy (p < 0.01) and 5.86 Gy (p < 0.01) for bladder, rectum and sigmoid.

CONCLUSIONS

Accurate knowledge-based dose prediction models were developed for two common intracavitary applicators. These models could be beneficial for standardizing and improving the quality of brachytherapy plans. Both models and clinical data suggest that significant OAR sparing can be achieved with T&R over T&O applicators, particularly for the rectum.