These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Multicentre treatment planning study of MRI-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer: comparison between tandem-ovoid applicator users.
    Author: Nomden CN, de Leeuw AA, Van Limbergen E, de Brabandere M, Nulens A, Nout RA, Laman M, Ketelaars M, Lutgens L, Reniers B, Jürgenliemk-Schulz IM.
    Journal: Radiother Oncol; 2013 Apr; 107(1):82-7. PubMed ID: 23127774.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare MRI-guided treatment planning approaches between four centres that use tandem-ovoid applicators. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four centres generated three treatment plans for four patients: standard, optimised intracavitary, and optimised intracavitary/interstitial. Prescribed D90 High-Risk CTV (HR-CTV) was 85 Gy EQD2 (external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy), while the D(2cc) OAR limit was 90 Gy EQD2 for bladder and 75 Gy EQD2 for rectum, sigmoid, and bowel, respectively. DVH-parameters, source loading patterns and spatial dose distributions of the three treatment plans were compared. RESULTS: The standard plans of the different centres were comparable with respect to the D90 HR-CTV, but differed in OAR doses. MRI-guided intracavitary optimisation resulted in organ sparing and smaller variation in DVH parameters between the centres. Adding interstitial needles led to target dose escalation while respecting the OAR constraints. However, substantial differences in relative weights of the applicator parts resulted in an increased variation in DVH parameters and locations of high dose regions. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided brachytherapy treatment planning optimisation provides the possibility to increase the dose to the HR-CTV and spare the OARs. Depending on the degree of conformity the centres make different choices in relative weighting of applicator parts, leading to different dose distributions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]