Dosimetric analysis of the optimization algorithm for intracavitary/interstitial brachytherapy of cervical cancer / 中华放射医学与防护杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To provide a basis for selecting the optimization method for intracavitary/interstitial brachytherapy (IC/ISBT) of cervical cancer by comparing graphical optimization (GO), inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA), and hybrid inverse planning optimization (HIPO) using dosimetric and radiobiological models.Methods:This study selected 65 patients with cervical cancer who were treated with image-guided IC/ISBT. The afterloading therapy plans for these patients were optimized using GO, IPSA, and HIPO individually, with a prescription dose high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) D90 of 6 Gy. The non-parametric Friedman test and the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank test were employed to analyze the differences in duration, dose-volume parameters, and radiobiology between the three types of optimized plans. Results:Inverse planning optimization (IPSA 46.53 s; HIPO 98.36 s) took less time than GO (135.03 s). In terms of gross target volume (GTV) dose, the high-dose irradiation V150% (53.66%) was slightly higher in the HIPO-optimized plans, while the V200% (30.29%) was higher in the GO-optimized plans. The GO-optimized plans had a higher conformity index (CI; 0.91) than other plans, showing statistically significant differences. Compared with other plans, the HIPO-optimized plans showed the lowest doses of D1 cm 3 and D2 cm 3 at bladders and rectums and non-statistically significant doses at small intestines ( P > 0.05). In terms of the equivalent uniform biologically effective dose (EUBED) for HRCTV, the HIPO-optimized plans showed a higher value (12.35 Gy) than the GO-optimized plans (12.23 Gy) and the IPSA-optimized plans (12.13 Gy). Moreover, the EUBED at bladders was the lowest (2.38 Gy) in the GO-optimized plans, the EUBED at rectums was the lowest (3.74 Gy) in the HIPO-optimized plans, and the EUBED at small intestines was non-significantly different among the three types of optimized plans ( P = 0.055). There was no significant difference in the tumor control probability (TCP) predicted using the three types of optimized plans ( P > 0.05). The normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) of bladders and rectums predicted using the HIPO-optimized plans were lower than those predicted using the GO- and IPSA-optimized plans( χ2 = 12.95-38.43, P < 0.01), and the NTCP of small intestines did not show significant differences ( P > 0.05). Conclusions:Among the three types of optimization algorithms, inverse optimization takes less time than GO. GO-optimized plans are more conformal than IPSA- and HIPO-optimized plans. HIPO-optimized plans can increase the biological coverage dose of the target volume and reduce the maximum physical/biological exposure and NTCP at bladders and rectums. Therefore, HIPO is recommended preferentially as an optimization algorithm for IC/ISBT for cervical cancer.