Search

PurposeThe use of interstitial needles, combined with intracavitary applicators, enables customized dose distributions and is beneficial for complex cases, but increases procedure time. Overall, applicator selection is not standardized and depends on physician expertise and preference. The purpose of this study is to determine whether dose prediction models can guide needle supplementation decision-making for cervical cancer.Materials and methodsIntracavitary knowledge-based models for organ-at-risk (OAR) dose estimation were trained and validated for tandem-and-ring/ovoids (T&R/T&O) implants. Models were applied to hybrid cases with 1-3 implanted needles to predict OAR dose without needles. As a reference, 70/67 hybrid T&R/T&O cases were replanned without needles, following a standardized procedure guided by dose predictions. If a replanned dose exceeded the dose objective, the case was categorized as requiring needles. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of needle classification accuracy were generated. Optimal classification thresholds were determined from the Youden Index.ResultsNeedle supplementation reduced dose to OARs. However, 67%/39% of replans for T&R/T&O met all dose constraints without needles. The ROC for T&R/T&O models had an area-under-curve of 0.89/0.86, proving high classification accuracy. The optimal threshold of 99%/101% of the dose limit for T&R/T&O resulted in classification sensitivity and specificity of 78%/86% and 85%/78%.ConclusionsNeedle supplementation reduced OAR dose for most cases but was not always required to meet standard dose objectives, particularly for T&R cases. Our knowledge-based dose prediction model accurately identified cases that could have met constraints without needle supplementation, suggesting that such models may be beneficial for applicator selection.

PurposeCurrently, there is a lack of patient-specific tools to guide brachytherapy planning and applicator choice for cervical cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of organ-at-risk (OAR) dose predictions using knowledge-based intracavitary models, and the use of these models and clinical data to determine the dosimetric differences of tandem-and-ring (T&R) and tandem-and-ovoids (T&O) applicators.Materials and methodsKnowledge-based models, which predict organ D2cc, were trained on 77/75 cases and validated on 32/38 for T&R/T&O applicators. Model performance was quantified using ΔD2cc=D2cc,actual-D2cc,predicted, with standard deviation (σ(ΔD2cc)) representing precision. Model-predicted applicator dose differences were determined by applying T&O models to T&R cases, and vice versa, and compared to clinically-achieved D2cc differences. Applicator differences were assessed using a Student's t-test (p < 0.05 significant).ResultsValidation T&O/T&R model precision was 0.65/0.55 Gy, 0.55/0.38 Gy, and 0.43/0.60 Gy for bladder, rectum and sigmoid, respectively, and similar to training. When applying T&O/T&R models to T&R/T&O cases, bladder, rectum and sigmoid D2cc values in EQD2 were on average 5.69/2.62 Gy, 7.31/6.15 Gy and 3.65/0.69 Gy lower for T&R, with similar HRCTV volume and coverage. Clinical data also showed lower T&R OAR doses, with mean EQD2 D2cc deviations of 0.61 Gy, 7.96 Gy (p < 0.01) and 5.86 Gy (p < 0.01) for bladder, rectum and sigmoid.ConclusionsAccurate knowledge-based dose prediction models were developed for two common intracavitary applicators. These models could be beneficial for standardizing and improving the quality of brachytherapy plans. Both models and clinical data suggest that significant OAR sparing can be achieved with T&R over T&O applicators, particularly for the rectum.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore knowledge-based organ-at-risk dose estimation for intracavitary brachytherapy planning for cervical cancer. Using established external-beam knowledge-based dose-volume histogram (DVH) estimation methods, we sought to predict bladder, rectum, and sigmoid D2cc for tandem and ovoid treatments.Methods and materialsA total of 136 patients with loco-regionally advanced cervical cancer treated with 456 (356:100 training:validation ratio) CT-based tandem and ovoid brachytherapy fractions were analyzed. Single fraction prescription doses were 5.5-8 Gy with dose criteria for the high-risk clinical target volume, bladder, rectum, and sigmoid. DVH estimations were obtained by subdividing training set organs-at-risk into high-risk clinical target volume boundary distance subvolumes and computing cohort-averaged differential DVHs. Full DVH estimation was then performed on the training and validation sets. Model performance was quantified by ΔD2cc = D2cc(actual)-D2cc(predicted) (mean and standard deviation). ΔD2cc between training and validation sets were compared with a Student's t test (p < 0.01 significant). Categorical variables (physician, fraction-number, total fractions, and case complexity) that might explain model variance were examined using an analysis of variance test (Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.01 threshold).ResultsTraining set deviations were bladder ΔD2cc = -0.04 ± 0.61 Gy, rectum ΔD2cc = 0.02 ± 0.57 Gy, and sigmoid ΔD2cc = -0.05 ± 0.52 Gy. Model predictions on validation set did not statistically differ: bladder ΔD2cc = -0.02 ± 0.46 Gy (p = 0.80), rectum ΔD2cc = -0.007 ± 0.47 Gy (p = 0.53), and sigmoid ΔD2cc = -0.07 ± 0.47 Gy (p = 0.70). The only significant categorical variable was the attending physician for bladder and rectum ΔD2cc. CONCLUSION: A simple boundary distance-driven knowledge-based DVH estimation exhibited promising results in predicting critical brachytherapy dose metrics. Future work will examine the utility of these predictions for quality control and automated brachytherapy planning.