Rectal doses in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies: Comparison of two dosimetric methods

Krystyna Serkies, Andrzej Badzio, Barbara Jereczek-Fossa, Zofia Tarnawska, Renata Nowak, Piotr Szewczyk, Jacek Jassem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare calculated rectal doses obtained by two dosimetric methods in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies Materials and methods: This analysis included 124 intracavitary applications performed in 102 patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. The pelvic dose distribution based on orthogonal intracavitary placement films was calculated with the computer planning system. In each application the rectal dose was defined in the specific rectal point determined by both the use of a wire marker inserted into the rectum (R1) and by packing the vagina with radio-opaque gauze - the method recommended by the ICRU Report 38 (R2). The comparison included R1 and R2 doses as well as the respective radiobiological equivalent doses determined by the linear-quadratic model (r1 and r2). Results: In 83% of applications the absolute value of R1 was lower than R2. The mean difference between R1 and R2 was 3.7 Gy (95% CI 3.03-4.41 Gy) and between r1 and r2 7.2 Gy (95% CI 5.77-8.56 Gy). These differences were significant (P <0.001 for both comparisons). The difference between the doses was not influenced by the type of applicator and remained significant even when a systemic ± 10% error of method was assumed. Conclusion: The rectal point dose determined with the use of rectal wire marker may be underestimated, therefore this method should be discouraged in gynecological brachytherapy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)37-41
Number of pages5
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume58
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 20 2001

Fingerprint

Brachytherapy
Neoplasms
Computer Systems
Vagina
Endometrial Neoplasms
Rectum
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Linear Models

Keywords

  • Dosimetry
  • Gynecological brachytherapy
  • ICRU Report 38
  • Rectal reference point

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Urology

Cite this

Rectal doses in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies : Comparison of two dosimetric methods. / Serkies, Krystyna; Badzio, Andrzej; Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara; Tarnawska, Zofia; Nowak, Renata; Szewczyk, Piotr; Jassem, Jacek.

In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 58, No. 1, 20.01.2001, p. 37-41.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Serkies, Krystyna ; Badzio, Andrzej ; Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara ; Tarnawska, Zofia ; Nowak, Renata ; Szewczyk, Piotr ; Jassem, Jacek. / Rectal doses in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies : Comparison of two dosimetric methods. In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2001 ; Vol. 58, No. 1. pp. 37-41.
@article{580dd813465a4bdfb4a8845574ee8bc0,
title = "Rectal doses in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies: Comparison of two dosimetric methods",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare calculated rectal doses obtained by two dosimetric methods in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies Materials and methods: This analysis included 124 intracavitary applications performed in 102 patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. The pelvic dose distribution based on orthogonal intracavitary placement films was calculated with the computer planning system. In each application the rectal dose was defined in the specific rectal point determined by both the use of a wire marker inserted into the rectum (R1) and by packing the vagina with radio-opaque gauze - the method recommended by the ICRU Report 38 (R2). The comparison included R1 and R2 doses as well as the respective radiobiological equivalent doses determined by the linear-quadratic model (r1 and r2). Results: In 83{\%} of applications the absolute value of R1 was lower than R2. The mean difference between R1 and R2 was 3.7 Gy (95{\%} CI 3.03-4.41 Gy) and between r1 and r2 7.2 Gy (95{\%} CI 5.77-8.56 Gy). These differences were significant (P <0.001 for both comparisons). The difference between the doses was not influenced by the type of applicator and remained significant even when a systemic ± 10{\%} error of method was assumed. Conclusion: The rectal point dose determined with the use of rectal wire marker may be underestimated, therefore this method should be discouraged in gynecological brachytherapy.",
keywords = "Dosimetry, Gynecological brachytherapy, ICRU Report 38, Rectal reference point",
author = "Krystyna Serkies and Andrzej Badzio and Barbara Jereczek-Fossa and Zofia Tarnawska and Renata Nowak and Piotr Szewczyk and Jacek Jassem",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00325-X",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "37--41",
journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
issn = "0167-8140",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rectal doses in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies

T2 - Comparison of two dosimetric methods

AU - Serkies, Krystyna

AU - Badzio, Andrzej

AU - Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara

AU - Tarnawska, Zofia

AU - Nowak, Renata

AU - Szewczyk, Piotr

AU - Jassem, Jacek

PY - 2001/1/20

Y1 - 2001/1/20

N2 - Purpose: To compare calculated rectal doses obtained by two dosimetric methods in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies Materials and methods: This analysis included 124 intracavitary applications performed in 102 patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. The pelvic dose distribution based on orthogonal intracavitary placement films was calculated with the computer planning system. In each application the rectal dose was defined in the specific rectal point determined by both the use of a wire marker inserted into the rectum (R1) and by packing the vagina with radio-opaque gauze - the method recommended by the ICRU Report 38 (R2). The comparison included R1 and R2 doses as well as the respective radiobiological equivalent doses determined by the linear-quadratic model (r1 and r2). Results: In 83% of applications the absolute value of R1 was lower than R2. The mean difference between R1 and R2 was 3.7 Gy (95% CI 3.03-4.41 Gy) and between r1 and r2 7.2 Gy (95% CI 5.77-8.56 Gy). These differences were significant (P <0.001 for both comparisons). The difference between the doses was not influenced by the type of applicator and remained significant even when a systemic ± 10% error of method was assumed. Conclusion: The rectal point dose determined with the use of rectal wire marker may be underestimated, therefore this method should be discouraged in gynecological brachytherapy.

AB - Purpose: To compare calculated rectal doses obtained by two dosimetric methods in intracavitary brachytherapy of gynecological malignancies Materials and methods: This analysis included 124 intracavitary applications performed in 102 patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. The pelvic dose distribution based on orthogonal intracavitary placement films was calculated with the computer planning system. In each application the rectal dose was defined in the specific rectal point determined by both the use of a wire marker inserted into the rectum (R1) and by packing the vagina with radio-opaque gauze - the method recommended by the ICRU Report 38 (R2). The comparison included R1 and R2 doses as well as the respective radiobiological equivalent doses determined by the linear-quadratic model (r1 and r2). Results: In 83% of applications the absolute value of R1 was lower than R2. The mean difference between R1 and R2 was 3.7 Gy (95% CI 3.03-4.41 Gy) and between r1 and r2 7.2 Gy (95% CI 5.77-8.56 Gy). These differences were significant (P <0.001 for both comparisons). The difference between the doses was not influenced by the type of applicator and remained significant even when a systemic ± 10% error of method was assumed. Conclusion: The rectal point dose determined with the use of rectal wire marker may be underestimated, therefore this method should be discouraged in gynecological brachytherapy.

KW - Dosimetry

KW - Gynecological brachytherapy

KW - ICRU Report 38

KW - Rectal reference point

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035915739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035915739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00325-X

DO - 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00325-X

M3 - Article

C2 - 11165680

AN - SCOPUS:0035915739

VL - 58

SP - 37

EP - 41

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

SN - 0167-8140

IS - 1

ER -