Dosimetric Comparison between Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided and Conventional Two-Dimensional...

The purpose of this study was to comprehensively compare the 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided and conventional 2-dimensional (2D) point A-based intracavitary brachytherapy (BT) planning for cervical cancer with regard to target dose coverage and dosages to adjacent organs-at risk (OARs).

A total of 79 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled to receive 2D point A-based BT planning and then immediately to receive 3D planning between October 2011 and April 2013 at the First Hospital Affiliated to Xi'an Jiao Tong University (Xi'an, China). The dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for gross tumor volume (GTV), high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV), intermediate-risk clinical target volume (IR-CTV) and OARs were compared between the 2D and 3D planning.

In small tumors, there was no significant difference in most of the DVHs between 2D and 3D planning (all p>0.05). While in big tumors, 3D BT planning significantly increased the DVHs for most of the GTV, HR-CTV and IR-CTV, and some OARs compared with 2D planning (all P<0.05). In 3D planning, DVHs for GTV, HR-CTV, IR-CTV and some OARs were significantly higher in big tumors than in small tumors (all p<0.05). In contrast, in 2D planning, DVHs for almost all of the HR-CTV and IR-CTV were significantly lower in big tumors (all p<0.05). In eccentric tumors, 3D planning significantly increased dose coverage but decreased dosages to OARs compared with 2D planning (p<0.05). In tumors invading adjacent tissues, the target dose coverage in 3D planning was generally significantly higher than in 2D planning (P<0.05); the dosages to the adjacent rectum and bladder were significantly higher but those to sigmoid colon were lower in 3D planning (all P<0.05).

3D MRI image-guided BT planning exhibits advantages over 2D planning in a complex way, generally showing advantages for the treatment of cervical cancer except small tumors.