A comparison of tandem ring and tandem ovoid treatment as a curative brachytherapy component for cervical cancer.

Abstract

PurposeThe standard treatment for locally advanced stage cervical cancer is definitive radiotherapy, the quality of which affects both survival and side effects. Brachytherapy is a major component of definitive radiotherapy; it is administered using different techniques and applicators. The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare tandem ovoid (T-ovoid) and tandem ring (T-ring) brachytherapy treatments.Material and methodsBoth applicator sets were applied to the same 20 patients, and treatment plans were made three-dimensionally (3D), with high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and organs at risk contoured. The HR-CTV was defined according to post-external magnetic resonance results. The patients with residual tumors not exceeding one-third of the parametrium were included in this study, while patients with larger masses were excluded and received interstitial therapy. The doses were calculated for both plans. Optimization for the HR-CTV was made with the aim that the equivalent dose according to 2 Gy (EQD2) of 90% of the HR-CTV (D90) would be higher than 85 Gy, without exceeding the maximum dose for organs at risk. Then, pairwise dosimetric comparisons were performed.ResultsPlans were compared dosimetrically according to the HR-CTV, point A and B doses, and organs at risk. Although the point A and B doses were higher with T-ovoid use, the 3D HR-CTV coverage was statistically better with T-ring application (EQD2 of HR-CTV D90: 97.46 Gy for T-ring and 88.44 Gy for T-ovoid; p < 0.0001). In addition, the rectum and bladder doses were statistically lower with T-ring usage (EQD2 of rectum, 2 cc; T-ring, 63.10 Gy; T-ovoid, 74.99 Gy; p < 0.0001; EQD2 of bladder, 2 cc; T-ring, 85.26 Gy; T-ovoid, 89.05 Gy; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsIn our study with a limited number of samples, T-ring applicator seems to offer better 3D brachytherapy dosimetry for both HR-CTV and nearby organs at risk.