Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
Dosimetry and plan parameters study of three-dimensional-printed template-based intra-cavitary/interstitial
Baoxi Liu1, Yaqin Wu1, Li Sun1
1Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Purpose:
To explore differences in dosimetry and planning parameters between intra-cavitary/interstitial interpolation (IC + ISBT) three-dimensional (3D)-printed template-based (3D-printed) and simple intra-cavity (ICBT) radiation techniques using a fixed Rotterdam three-tube applicator (TT) for computed tomography-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer.
Material And Methods:
This retrospective study included 100 patients (n = 50 each in 3D-printed and Rotterdam three-tube applicator treatment groups) with FIGO stages IIB-IVB cervical cancer from May 2019 to May 2022. Using high-risk clinical target volume, 377 of 400 plans categorized at intervals of 10 cm3 into 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70, and 70-80 cm3; 23 plans with < 20 and > 80 cm3 volume were excluded. Dosimetry parameters (D90 and D98 of high-risk clinical target volume, and D2cc of organs at risk, including bladder, rectum, sigmoid, and bowel) and planning parameters (homogeneity index [HI], conformation number [CN], and organ at risk sparing factor) were compared between the two groups separately for six high-risk clinical target volume plan categories.
Results:
For the 3D-printing group, target coverage, organs at risk protection, and plan conformity and uniformity were better than those for the Rotterdam three-tube group. Particularly, in high-risk clinical target volume plans between 50-60 cm3, the mean D90 and D98 of high-risk clinical target volume were approximately 0.35 and 0.3 Gy higher, while the average D2cc of the bladder, rectum, sigmoid, and bowel were approximately 1.3, 0.9, 0.9, and 0.8 Gy significantly lower than those of the Rotterdam three-tube group, respectively (p < 0.05). The above-mentioned planning parameters differed significantly between the groups (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
For the 3D-printing group, IC/ISBT reduced the dose for organs at risk while ensuring target coverage and conformation. This was especially noticeable for plans with high-risk clinical target volume of 50-60 cm3.
