4.3 Article

Retrospective DVH analysis of point A based intracavitary brachytherapy for uterine cervical cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 265-274

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrz099

Keywords

cervical cancer; radiotherapy; brachytherapy; DVH analysis; high-risk CTV

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [18 K07760]
  2. Ono Cancer Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Combining external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) is important for definitive treatment of cervical cancer. In cervical cancer patients receiving radiotherapy, we evaluated treatment outcomes in relation to dose-volume histogram parameters, including the computed tomography (CT)-based high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) for ICBT. Between 2010 and 2015, 89 consecutive cervical cancer patients were mostly treated with 40 Gy of EBRT in 20 fractions and 18 Gy of ICBT prescribed to point A in 3 fractions. CT scans were obtained during ICBT. The HR-CTV D90 was calculated and the total doses of ICBT and EBRT were converted to the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2). When the patients were divided into four groups according to EQD2 of the HR-CTV D90, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival rates were 95.2, 78.4, 52.7 and 42.9% for patients receiving >80, 70-80, 60-70 and <60 Gy, respectively. There was a significant negative correlation between EQD2 of the HR-CTV D90 and the HR-CTV volume at first ICBT (r = - 0.713). Local recurrence was more frequent when the HR-CTV volume was >= 22 cc and EQD2 of the HR-CTV D90 was <70 Gy. Multivariate analysis showed that EQD2 of the HR-CTV D90 and concurrent chemotherapy (>= 4 cycles) were significant determinants of overall survival. HR-CTV D90 was an important prognostic indicator for local recurrence. HR-CTV D90 >70 Gy is required for the better local control, especially in patients with a larger HR-CTV (>= 22 cc at initial ICBT).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available