Prospective Dosimetric Comparison Study Between Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intracavitary Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer

Abstract

Although volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) boost can achieve highly conformal dose distributions for cervical cancer, VMAT has the disadvantage of requiring set-up and organ motion margins. This study prospectively recruited patients with the cervical cancer and compared VMAT plan with intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) plan. All patients treated with ICBT for locally advanced cervical cancer between April 2020 and September 2022 were enrolled. Patients had whole-pelvis radiotherapy, followed by CT scans with and without the tandem and ovoid in the same session (for the planning of ICBT and VMAT, respectively). ICBT planning characterizes the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) as the target volume and the bladder, rectum, sigmoid colon and small bowel loop as the organ at risk (OAR). VMAT planning defines the HR-CTV + 3 mm as the target volume and bladder, rectum + 3 mm (planning organ at risk volume (PRV) rectum), sigmoid colon + 3 mm (PRV sigmoid) and bowel bag as the OAR to account for set-up and organ motion. ICBT and VMAT plans were optimized for maximal dose received by at least 90% (D90%) of the target volume without impairing the dose constraints for the OARs. The prescribed dose (PD) was 26 Gy in 4 fractions. The dose constraints were determined as 25.2 Gy for D2 ml in the bladder and 20 Gy for D2 ml in the other OARs. The D90% and D100% of the target volume and D2 ml of OARs were compared between 2 plans using paired two-tailed Student's t test. Seventeen patients were enrolled. Dose and volume parameters for the 2 plans are shown in Table 1. Of the 17 patients, D90% of the target volume received 100% PD in 4 cases with ICBT plans, in 6 cases for VMAT plans, and in 2 cases with both methods. For D90% of the target volume, ICBT plans were greater than VMAT plans in 4 cases, with a maximum difference of 5.6 Gy (ICBT: 26.0 Gy, SBRT: 20.4 Gy). VMAT plans were higher than ICBT plans in 11 cases, with a maximum difference of 10.3 Gy (ICBT: 14.5 Gy, SBRT: 24.8 Gy). The dose-limiting OARs to attain D90% of target volume were bladder in 12 cases and small bowel loop in 1 case for ICBT plans, while PRV rectum in 11 cases, PRV sigmoid in 4 cases and bowel bag in 1 case for VMAT plans. This prospective study with 17 ICBT-eligible patients revealed D90% of the target volume demonstrated no substantial difference between VMAT and ICBT plans, while D100% showed a significant increase in VMAT plan compared to ICBT plan. Even with a set-up and organ motion margins on the HR-CTV and OARs, VMAT may have a dosimetric advantage over ICBT if the target geometry is complicated and close to the OARs.