Background To assess the differences among three dose-fractionation schedules of image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) by comparing the dosimetry and clinical outcomes. Methods Forty-five patients with CSCC who underwent chemoradiotherapy and IGABT were retrospectively enrolled and divided into three groups based on their dose-fractionation schedules of brachytherapy as: Group-5.5 (5.5 Gy × 6 fractions), Group-6.0 (6.0 Gy × 5 fractions), and Group-7.0 (7.0 Gy × 4 fractions). The analyzed dose-volume histogram parameters included D 90% and D 98% of the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV), D 90% and D 98% of intermediate-risk clinical target volume (IR-CTV), and D 0.1cc and D 2cc of the organs-at-risk (OARs, namely the bladder, rectum, sigmoid and small intestine). Furthermore, the therapeutic efficacy and late toxicities were also compared among the three groups. Results The doses of HR-CTV and IR-CTV in Group-5.5 were found to be the highest among the three groups, followed by those in Group-6.0. Significant differences were found for the doses of HR-CTV between Group-5.5 and the other groups. There were no significant differences in the bladder, sigmoid and small intestine dose among the three groups. However, Group-6.0 yielded the lowest rectum received doses, with a significant difference in D 0.1cc being detected between Group-6.0 and Group-5.5. The median follow-up time was 30.08 months [range, 6.57–46.3]. The numbers of patients with complete response in Group-5.5, Group-6.0 and Group-7.0 were 13, 14 and 14, respectively (P > 0.05). In regard to the toxicitiy, the incidence of radiation cystitis and proctitis in Group-6.0 was lower than that in Group-5.5 and Group-7.0 (P > 0.05). Conclusions The dose-fractionation schedule of 6.0 Gy × 5 fractions provided the most beneficial effects with relatively low OARs doses, suggesting that this dose-fractionation schedule should be prioritized in the clinical application of brachytherapy in cervical cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: