Dosimetric evaluation of two treatment planning systems for high dose rate brachytherapy applications.

Various treatment planning systems are used to design plans for the treatment of cervical cancer using high-dose-rate brachytherapy. The purpose of this study was to make a dosimetric comparison of the 2 treatment planning systems from Varian medical systems, namely ABACUS and BrachyVision. The dose distribution of Ir-192 source generated with a single dwell position was compared using ABACUS (version 3.1) and BrachyVision (version 6.5) planning systems. Ten patients with intracavitary applications were planned on both systems using orthogonal radiographs. Doses were calculated at the prescription points (point A, right and left) and reference points RU, LU, RM, LM, bladder, and rectum. For single dwell position, little difference was observed in the doses to points along the perpendicular bisector. The mean difference between ABACUS and BrachyVision for these points was 1.88%. The mean difference in the dose calculated toward the distal end of the cable by ABACUS and BrachyVision was 3.78%, whereas along the proximal end the difference was 19.82%. For the patient case there was approximately 2% difference between ABACUS and BrachyVision planning for dose to the prescription points. The dose difference for the reference points ranged from 0.4-1.5%. For bladder and rectum, the differences were 5.2% and 13.5%, respectively. The dose difference between the rectum points was statistically significant. There is considerable difference between the dose calculations performed by the 2 treatment planning systems. It is seen that these discrepancies are caused by the differences in the calculation methodology adopted by the 2 systems.

Dosimetric comparison of various optimization techniques for high dose rate brachytherapy of interstitial cervix implants.

HDR brachytherapy treatment planning often involves optimization methods to calculate the dwell times and dwell positions of the radioactive source along specified afterloading catheters. The purpose of this study is to compare the dose distribution obtained with geometric optimization (GO) and volume optimization (VO) combined with isodose reshaping. This is a retrospective study of 10 cervix HDR interstitial brachytherapy implants planned using geometric optimization and treated with a dose of 6 Gy per fraction. Four treatment optimization plans were compared: geometric optimization (GO), volume optimization (VO), geometric optimization followed by isodose reshape (GO_IsoR), and volume optimization followed by isodose reshape (VO_IsoR). Dose volume histogram (DVH) was analyzed and the four plans were evaluated based on the dosimetric parameters: target coverage (V100), conformal index (COIN), homogeneity index (HI), dose nonuniformity ratio (DNR) and natural dose ratio (NDR). Good target coverage by the prescription dose was achieved with GO_ IsoR (mean V100 of 88.11%), with 150% and 200% of the target volume receiving 32.0% and 10.4% of prescription dose, respectively. Slightly lower target coverage was achieved with VO_IsoR plans (mean V100 of 86.11%) with a significant reduction in the tumor volume receiving high dose (mean V150 of 28.29% and mean V200 of 7.3%). Conformity and homogeneity were good with VO_ IsoR (mean COIN = 0.75 and mean HI = 0.58) as compared to the other optimization techniques. VO_IsoR plans are superior in sparing the normal structures while also providing better conformity and homogeneity to the target. Clinically acceptable plans can be obtained by isodose reshaping provided the isodose lines are dragged carefully.