AbstractObjective To investigate the effect of dwell time deviation constraint of inverse optimization on the quality and position error robustness of three-dimensional (3D) brachytherapy plans for cervical cancer. Methods A total of 20 patients with cervical cancer receiving 3D brachytherapy treatment in Xiangya Hospital Central South University from August 2020 to August 2021 were retrospectively selected. All plans were designed using the Eclipse treatment planning system, and the dwell time deviation constraint parameter smooth value in the system were set to 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00, respectively. An inverse dose volume optimization algorithm was used to generate plans with various smooth values, and the optimization conditions were the same as the original clinical plans. Key dosimetric metrics and total dwell time differences were comparatively analyzed. The applicators were intentionally subjected to position errors (0.2-1.0 cm) in 6 directions (left-right, anterior-posterior, head-foot), and the effect of various smooth values on plan quality and robustness was assessed. There were 133 plans per case and 2 660 plans for 20 patients. The results were statistically analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank nonparametric test. Results As the smooth value was increased, the modulation factor was gradually decreased and the D2 cm3 of the bladder and rectum was increased. Plans with smooth values of 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 had modulation factors of 0.72±0.09, 0.63±0.08, 0.55±0.08, 0.51±0.06, respectively, lower than 0.75±0.05 of the plan with the smooth value of 0.00, and all differences were statistically significant (P=0.004, 0.002, 0.002, 0.002). The bladder D2 cm3 of plans with smooth values of 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 were (475.4±41.0) cGy, (483.7±46.2) cGy, and (489.0±46.8) cGy, respectively, higher than (469.8±41.8) cGy of the plan with the smooth value of 0.00, with statistically significant differences (all P=0.002). The rectum D2 cm3 of plans with smooth values of 0.50 and 0.75 plans were (413.2±93.3) cGy and (418.6±96.4) cGy, both higher than (410.2±91.5) cGy of the plan with the smooth value of 0.00, with statistically significant differences (P=0.006, 0.010). When positional errors were introduced, the high risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) D90% was close for different smooth plans at most positional errors, and the differences were not statistically significant. The organs at risk D2 cm3 of plans with the smooth value of 0.00 was lower than those of plans with other smooth values, and for the bladder and rectum, the differences were statistically significant at most positional errors (all P<0.01). Conclusions The dwell time deviation constraint parameter exerts significant effect on the plan quality, and the smaller the value of the constraint parameter, the higher quality of the plan. The dwell time deviation constraint parameter has slight impact on the positional error robustness of dosimetric indices of targets and key organs at risk.
Fund:National Natural Science Foundation of China (12005306); Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2021JJ40960, 2021JJ40966, 2022JJ30976)
Corresponding Authors:
Yang Xiaoyu, Email: yxiaoyu@csu.edu.cn
Cite this article:
Cao Ying,Yang Zhen,Tang Du et al. Effect of dwell time deviation constraint on the three-dimensional brachytherapy plans for cervical cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2023, 32(8): 711-718.
Cao Ying,Yang Zhen,Tang Du et al. Effect of dwell time deviation constraint on the three-dimensional brachytherapy plans for cervical cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2023, 32(8): 711-718.
[1] Yan JF, Zhu JW, Chen K, et al.Intra-fractional dosimetric analysis of image-guided intracavitary brachytherapy of cervical cancer[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2021,16(1):144. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01870-x. [2] Lessard E, Hsu IC, Pouliot J.Inverse planning for interstitial gynecologic template brachytherapy: truly anatomy-based planning[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2002,54(4):1243-1251. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)03802-6. [3] Dewitt KD, Hsu IC, Speight J, et al.3D inverse treatment planning for the tandem and ovoid applicator in cervical cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2005,63(4):1270-1274. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.972. [4] Fu Q, Xu YJ, Zuo J, et al.Comparison of two inverse planning algorithms for cervical cancer brachytherapy[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2021,22(3):157-165. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13195. [5] Wakamiya T, Yamashita S, Kikkawa K, et al.Inverse planning in high-dose rate brachytherapy improves quality of life of prostate cancer patients compared with forward planning[J]. Int J Clin Oncol, 2021,26(4):728-735. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-020-01851-2. [6] Tang B, Liu XY, Wang XL, et al.Dosimetric comparison of graphical optimization and inverse planning simulated annealing for brachytherapy of cervical cancer[J]. J Contemp Brachytherapy, 2019,11(4):379-383. DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2019.87145. [7] Smith RL, Panettieri V, Lancaster C, et al.The influence of the dwell time deviation constraint (DTDC) parameter on dosimetry with IPSA optimisation for HDR prostate brachytherapy[J]. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 2015,38(1):55-61. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-014-0317-2. [8] Roy S, Subramani V, Singh K, et al.Study of the effects of dwell time deviation constraints on inverse planning simulated annealing optimized plans of intracavitary brachytherapy of cancer cervix[J]. J Cancer Res Ther, 2019,15(6):1370-1376. DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_246_18. [9] Kirisits C, Rivard MJ, Baltas D, et al.Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2014,110(1):199-212. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.11.002. [10] Schindel J, Zhang W, Bhatia SK, et al.Dosimetric impacts of applicator displacements and applicator reconstruction- uncertainties on 3D image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer[J]. J Contemp Brachytherapy, 2013,5(4):250-257. DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2013.39453. [11] Yong JS, Ung NM, Jamalludin Z, et al. Dosimetric impact of applicator displacement during high dose rate (HDR) cobalt-60 brachy therapy for cervical cancer: a planning study[J]. Radiat Phys Chem,2016,119:264-271.DOI:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.11.011. [12] Shi D, He MY, Zhao ZP, et al.Utrecht interstitial applicator shifts and DVH parameter changes in 3D CT-based HDR brachytherapy of cervical cancer[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2015,16(9):3945-3949. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.9.3945. [13] Balsdon A, Timotin E, Hunter R, et al.Stability of intracavitary applicator placement for HDR brachytherapy of cervix cancer[J]. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci, 2019,50(3):441-448. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2019.05.005. [14] Whitaker M, Hruby G, Lovett A, et al.Prostate HDR brachytherapy catheter displacement between planning and treatment delivery[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2011,101(3):490-494. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.08.004. [15] Tiong A, Bydder S, Ebert M, et al.A small tolerance for catheter displacement in high-dose rate prostate brachytherapy is necessary and feasible[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2010,76(4):1066-1072. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.052. [16] Baltas D, Katsilieri Z, Kefala V, et al. Influence of modulation restriction in inverse optimization with HIPO of prostate implants on plan quality: analysis using dosimetric and radiobiological indices[J]. Med Phys,2010,25(1): 283-286. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-03474-9_81. [17] Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E, et al.Recommendations from GYNAECological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2005,74(3):235-245. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.12.015. [18] Wu AL, Tang D, Wu AD, et al.Comparison of the dosimetric influence of applicator displacement on 2D and 3D brachytherapy for cervical cancer treatment[J]. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2021,20:15330338211041201. DOI: 10.1177/15330338211041201. [19] Pötter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Limbergen E, et al.Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): concepts and terms in 3D image-based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy-3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image-based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2006,78(1):67-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2005.11.014. [20] Balvert M, Gorissen BL, den Hertog D, et al. Dwell time modulation restrictions do not necessarily improve treatment plan quality for prostate HDR brachytherapy[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2015,60(2):537-548. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/2/537. [21] Poder J, Whitaker M.Robustness of IPSA optimized high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment plans to catheter displacements[J]. J Contemp Brachytherapy, 2016,8(3):201-207. DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2016.60499. [22] Liu W, Zhang XD, Li YP, et al.Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy[J]. Med Phys, 2012,39(2):1079-1091. DOI: 10.1118/1.3679340. [23] Li YP, Niemela P, Liao L, et al.Selective robust optimization: a new intensity-modulated proton therapy optimization strategy[J]. Med Phys, 2015,42(8):4840-4847. DOI: 10.1118/1.4923171. [24] Fredriksson A, Forsgren A, Hårdemark B.Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy[J]. Med Phys, 2011,38(3):1672-1684. DOI: 10.1118/1.3556559. [25] Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Furukawa T, et al.A robust algorithm of intensity modulated proton therapy for critical tissue sparing and target coverage[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2011,56(15):4749-4770. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/15/008. [26] Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Furukawa T, et al.Optimization algorithm for overlapping-field plans of scanned ion beam therapy with reduced sensitivity to range and setup uncertainties[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2011,56(6):1653-1669. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/6/009. [27] Unkelbach J, Bortfeld T, Martin BC, et al.Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning[J]. Med Phys, 2009,36(1):149-163. DOI: 10.1118/1.3021139. [28] 王先良, 王培, 康盛伟, 等. 后装放疗计划的鲁棒优化研究[J].中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2021,30(4):387-391. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20190709-00266. Wang XL, Wang P, Kang SW, et al.Study of robust optimization in brachytherapy[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol,2021,30(4):387-391. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20190709-00266. [29] Jo B, Park K, Shin D, et al.Feasibility study of robust optimization to reduce dose delivery uncertainty by potential applicator displacements for a cervix brachytherapy[J]. Appl Sci,2021,11(6): 2592. DOI:10.3390/app11062592. [30] International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, recording, and reporting brachytherapy for cancer of the cervix[R]. Bethesda, MD: ICRU, 2013.
2023, Vol. 32 
