Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Gynecologic Cancer
Published on: April 17, 2012
Comparison between the ICRU rectal point and modern volumetric parameters in brachytherapy for locally advanced
R Mazeron1, L Kamsu Kom2, E Rivin del Campo2
1Unité de curiethérapie, département of radiothérapie, institut de cancérologie Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France; Laboratoire de radiothérapie moléculaire, institut de cancérologie Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France; Inserm U1030, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France.
Purpose:
The implementation of image-guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer raises the problem of adapting the experience acquired with 2D brachytherapy to this technique. The GEC-ESTRO (Groupe européen de curiethérapie - European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology) has recommended reporting the dose delivered to the rectum in the maximally exposed 2 cm(3) volume, but so far, the recommended dose constraints still rely on 2D data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the doses evaluated at the ICRU rectal point and modern dosimetric parameters.
Material And Methods:
For each patient, dosimetric parameters were generated prospectively at the time of dosimetry and were reported. For analysis, they were converted in 2 Gy equivalent doses using an α/β ratio of 3 with a half-time of repair of 1.5 hours.
Results:
The dosimetric data from 229 consecutive patients treated for locally advanced cervical cancer was analyzed. The mean dose calculated at ICRU point (DICRU) was 55.75 Gy ± 4.15, while it was 59.27 Gy ± 6.16 in the maximally exposed 2 cm(3) of the rectum (P=0.0003). The D2 cm(3) was higher than the DICRU in 78% of the cases. The mean difference between D2 cm(3) and DICRU was 3.53 Gy ± 4.91. This difference represented 5.41% ± 7.40 of the total dose delivered to the rectum (EBRT and BT), and 15.49% ± 24.30 of the dose delivered when considering brachytherapy alone. The two parameters were significantly correlated (P=0.000001), and related by the equation: D2 cm(3)=0.902 × DICRU + 0.984. The r(2) coefficient was 0.369.
Conclusion:
In this large cohort of patients, the DICRU significantly underestimates the D2 cm(3). This difference probably results from the optimization process itself, which consists in increasing dwell times above the ICRU point in the cervix. Considering these findings, caution must be taken while implementing image-guided brachytherapy and dose escalation.
