Comparing organ-at-risk doses for high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy between three different planning workflows

J. D. Gruhl, Dandan Zheng, J. L. Longo, Charles Arthur Enke, Andrew O Wahl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the organ-at-risk doses to the rectum and the bladder in postoperative endometrial cancer patients who receive high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy (HDR-VB), when using three different methods of treatment planning: (Workflow A) individualized treatment planning before every fraction, (Workflow B) individualized treatment planning for first fraction only), and (Workflow C) using a template plan based on applicator choice and prescription specifics without patient-specific imaging or planning (standardized template approach). Methods and Materials Alternative plans were retrospectively created using workflows B and C for 22 patients who previously received postoperative HDR-VB using a vaginal cylinder and planned using Workflow A for endometrial cancer. The rectum and bladder were contoured on the CTs used for each fraction for dose comparison between the three methods. D50, D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100 of the bladder and the rectum were compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results A total of 123 fractions were available for comparison. For Workflow A vs. Workflow B, there was no significant difference for any rectal or bladder dosimetric parameter. For Workflow A vs. Workflow C, Workflow A delivered a significantly higher median dose to the rectum than Workflow C for D50, D2cc, D1cc, and V100. Workflow C delivered a significantly higher dose to the bladder than Workflow A: D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100. However, the magnitudes of the differences were small; the dose index difference was >75 cGy for only two fractions. Conclusion Plan standardization in HDR-VB may result in considerable time and cost savings with minimal organ-at-risk dose differences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)373-377
Number of pages5
JournalBrachytherapy
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Organs at Risk
Workflow
Brachytherapy
Urinary Bladder
Rectum
Endometrial Neoplasms
Cost Savings
Nonparametric Statistics
Prescriptions

Keywords

  • Endometrial cancer
  • HDR vaginal brachytherapy
  • Organ-at-risk doses
  • Vaginal brachytherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparing organ-at-risk doses for high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy between three different planning workflows. / Gruhl, J. D.; Zheng, Dandan; Longo, J. L.; Enke, Charles Arthur; Wahl, Andrew O.

In: Brachytherapy, Vol. 16, No. 2, 01.03.2017, p. 373-377.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{509cf256731547f49cc32d89d0e38730,
title = "Comparing organ-at-risk doses for high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy between three different planning workflows",
abstract = "Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the organ-at-risk doses to the rectum and the bladder in postoperative endometrial cancer patients who receive high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy (HDR-VB), when using three different methods of treatment planning: (Workflow A) individualized treatment planning before every fraction, (Workflow B) individualized treatment planning for first fraction only), and (Workflow C) using a template plan based on applicator choice and prescription specifics without patient-specific imaging or planning (standardized template approach). Methods and Materials Alternative plans were retrospectively created using workflows B and C for 22 patients who previously received postoperative HDR-VB using a vaginal cylinder and planned using Workflow A for endometrial cancer. The rectum and bladder were contoured on the CTs used for each fraction for dose comparison between the three methods. D50, D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100 of the bladder and the rectum were compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results A total of 123 fractions were available for comparison. For Workflow A vs. Workflow B, there was no significant difference for any rectal or bladder dosimetric parameter. For Workflow A vs. Workflow C, Workflow A delivered a significantly higher median dose to the rectum than Workflow C for D50, D2cc, D1cc, and V100. Workflow C delivered a significantly higher dose to the bladder than Workflow A: D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100. However, the magnitudes of the differences were small; the dose index difference was >75 cGy for only two fractions. Conclusion Plan standardization in HDR-VB may result in considerable time and cost savings with minimal organ-at-risk dose differences.",
keywords = "Endometrial cancer, HDR vaginal brachytherapy, Organ-at-risk doses, Vaginal brachytherapy",
author = "Gruhl, {J. D.} and Dandan Zheng and Longo, {J. L.} and Enke, {Charles Arthur} and Wahl, {Andrew O}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.brachy.2016.11.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "373--377",
journal = "Brachytherapy",
issn = "1538-4721",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing organ-at-risk doses for high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy between three different planning workflows

AU - Gruhl, J. D.

AU - Zheng, Dandan

AU - Longo, J. L.

AU - Enke, Charles Arthur

AU - Wahl, Andrew O

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the organ-at-risk doses to the rectum and the bladder in postoperative endometrial cancer patients who receive high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy (HDR-VB), when using three different methods of treatment planning: (Workflow A) individualized treatment planning before every fraction, (Workflow B) individualized treatment planning for first fraction only), and (Workflow C) using a template plan based on applicator choice and prescription specifics without patient-specific imaging or planning (standardized template approach). Methods and Materials Alternative plans were retrospectively created using workflows B and C for 22 patients who previously received postoperative HDR-VB using a vaginal cylinder and planned using Workflow A for endometrial cancer. The rectum and bladder were contoured on the CTs used for each fraction for dose comparison between the three methods. D50, D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100 of the bladder and the rectum were compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results A total of 123 fractions were available for comparison. For Workflow A vs. Workflow B, there was no significant difference for any rectal or bladder dosimetric parameter. For Workflow A vs. Workflow C, Workflow A delivered a significantly higher median dose to the rectum than Workflow C for D50, D2cc, D1cc, and V100. Workflow C delivered a significantly higher dose to the bladder than Workflow A: D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100. However, the magnitudes of the differences were small; the dose index difference was >75 cGy for only two fractions. Conclusion Plan standardization in HDR-VB may result in considerable time and cost savings with minimal organ-at-risk dose differences.

AB - Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the organ-at-risk doses to the rectum and the bladder in postoperative endometrial cancer patients who receive high-dose-rate vaginal brachytherapy (HDR-VB), when using three different methods of treatment planning: (Workflow A) individualized treatment planning before every fraction, (Workflow B) individualized treatment planning for first fraction only), and (Workflow C) using a template plan based on applicator choice and prescription specifics without patient-specific imaging or planning (standardized template approach). Methods and Materials Alternative plans were retrospectively created using workflows B and C for 22 patients who previously received postoperative HDR-VB using a vaginal cylinder and planned using Workflow A for endometrial cancer. The rectum and bladder were contoured on the CTs used for each fraction for dose comparison between the three methods. D50, D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100 of the bladder and the rectum were compared using the two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results A total of 123 fractions were available for comparison. For Workflow A vs. Workflow B, there was no significant difference for any rectal or bladder dosimetric parameter. For Workflow A vs. Workflow C, Workflow A delivered a significantly higher median dose to the rectum than Workflow C for D50, D2cc, D1cc, and V100. Workflow C delivered a significantly higher dose to the bladder than Workflow A: D2cc, D1cc, D0.1cc, and V100. However, the magnitudes of the differences were small; the dose index difference was >75 cGy for only two fractions. Conclusion Plan standardization in HDR-VB may result in considerable time and cost savings with minimal organ-at-risk dose differences.

KW - Endometrial cancer

KW - HDR vaginal brachytherapy

KW - Organ-at-risk doses

KW - Vaginal brachytherapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009265642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009265642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.brachy.2016.11.008

DO - 10.1016/j.brachy.2016.11.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 28039010

AN - SCOPUS:85009265642

VL - 16

SP - 373

EP - 377

JO - Brachytherapy

JF - Brachytherapy

SN - 1538-4721

IS - 2

ER -