Dosimetric comparison of inverse optimisation methods versus forward optimisation in HDR brachytherapy of breast, cervical and prostate cancer

Abstract

ObjectiveDosimetric comparison of HIPO (hybrid inverse planning optimisation) and IPSA (inverse planning simulated annealing) inverse and forward optimisation (FO) methods in brachytherapy (BT) of breast, cervical and prostate cancer.MethodsAt our institute 38 breast, 47 cervical and 50 prostate cancer patients treated with image-guided interstitial high-dose-rate BT were selected. Treatment plans were created using HIPO and IPSA inverse optimisation methods as well as FO. The dose–volume parameters of different treatment plans were compared with Friedman ANOVA and the LSD post-hoc test.ResultsIPSA creates less dose coverage to the target volume than HIPO or FO: V100 was 91.7%, 91% and 91.9% for HIPO, IPSA and FO plans (p = 0.1784) in breast BT; 90.4%, 89.2% and 91% (p = 0.0045) in cervical BT; and 97.1%, 96.2% and 97.7% (p = 0.0005) in prostate BT, respectively. HIPO results in more conformal plans: COIN was 0.72, 0.71 and 0.69 (p = 0.0306) in breast BT; 0.6, 0.47 and 0.58 (p < 0.001) in cervical BT; and 0.8, 0.7 and 0.7 (p < 0.001) in prostate BT, respectively. In breast BT, dose to the skin and lung was smaller with HIPO and FO than with IPSA. In cervical BT, dose to the rectum, sigmoid and bowel was larger using IPSA than with HIPO or FO. In prostate BT, dose to the urethra was higher and the rectal dose was smaller using FO than with inverse methods.ConclusionIn interstitial breast and prostate BT, HIPO results in comparable dose–volume parameters to FO, but HIPO plans are more conformal. In cervical BT, HIPO produces dosimetrically acceptable plans only when more needles are used. The dosimetric quality of IPSA plans is suboptimal and results in unnecessary larger active lengths.