MRI Based 3D Brachytherapy Planning of the Cervical Cancer – Our Experiences with the Use of the Uterovaginal Vienna Ring MR‑ CT Applicator

Czech version

Authors: R. Vojtíšek ¹; F. Mouryc ¹; D. Čechová ¹; R. Ciprová ¹; J. Ferda ²; J. Fínek ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Onkologická a radioterapeutická klinika LF UK a FN Plzeň ¹; Klinika zobrazovacích metod LF UK a FN Plzeň ²
Published in: Klin Onkol 2014; 27(1): 45-51
Category: Original Articles

Overview

Background:
Uterovaginal brachytherapy planning is conventionally based on the use of two orthogonal X‑ray projections. Currently, there is a large development of 3D brachytherapy planning based on the fusion of CT and MRI, which takes into account the extent of the tumor and the location of organs at risk. In this work, we evaluated the dosimetric data and first clinical results in patients with inoperable cervical cancer using MRI/ CT compatible applicator enabling 3D planning.

Patients and Methods:
Between June 2012 and March 2013, we performed 52 uterovaginal applications in 13 patients with inoperable cervical cancer using Vienna Ring MR‑ CT applicator. Planning was carried out by the fusion of MRI and CT. Target volumes and organs at risk delineation were carried out on the basis of GEC‑ ESTRO and ABS recommendations as well as doses reporting.

Results:
Overall radiotherapy duration was 37– 52 days with median of 45 days. The median total dose delivered to the HR CTV was 88 Gy (70.7– 97.9) EQD2. The median single dose in brachytherapeutic applications was D90 = 6.45 Gy (3.2– 9.82). The median total doses delivered to the rectum, sigmoid colon and bladder were D2cc_rectum = 64.2 Gy (54.3– 74.1), D2cc_sigmoid = 68.6 Gy (57– 74.7) a D2cc_bladder = 73.9 Gy (58.3– 92.6). In 11 patients (84.6%), complete locoregional remission was achieved, in the remaining two patients (15.4%), partial locoregional remission was achieved. Twelve patients (92.3%) had complete regression of the tumor in the cervix, one patient (7.7%) developed metastatic spread to the liver. Yet we did not observe manifestations of a higher degree of toxicity than the first grade, both GI and GU. Late GI toxicity was manifested in two patients (15.4%) and late GU toxicity was manifested in five patients (38.5%).

Conclusion:
3D brachytherapy planning of inoperable cervical cancer using the fusion of MRI and CT conclusively raises the possibility of the dose escalation to the tumor and significantly spares the surrounding organs at risk. Subsequently, this way of planning leads to better local control of the disease and to lower radiation morbidity.

Key words:
cancer of the cervix – brachytherapy – radiotherapy planning – magnetic resonance imaging – uterovaginal applicator

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Submitted:
4. 8. 2013

Accepted:
5. 9. 2013

Sources

1. Dušek L, Mužík J, Kubásek M et al (eds). Epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů v České republice [online]. Masarykova univerzita, [2005]. Dostupný z: http:/ / www.svod.cz. Verze 7.0 [2007].

2. Mouková L, Nenutil R, Fabián P et al. Prognostické faktory karcinomu děložního hrdla. Klin Onkol 2013; 26(2): 83– 90.

3. Viswanathan AN, Thomadsen B, American Brachytherapy Society Cervical Cancer Recommendations Committee et al. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part I: general principles. Brachytherapy 2012; 11(1): 33– 46. doi: 10.1016/ j.brachy.2011.07.003.

4. Green JA, Kirwan JM, Tierney JF et al. Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Lancet 2001; 358(9284): 781– 786.

5. Shin KH, Kim TH, Cho JK et al. CT‑ guided intracavitary radiotherapy for cervical cancer: Comparison of conventional point A plan with clinical target volume‑based three‑ dimensional plan using dose‑volume parameters. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64(1): 197– 204.

6. ICRU. Dose and volume specification for reporting intracavitary therapy in gynaecology. ICRU report 38. Bethesda: International Commission on Units and Measurements: 1985.

7. Onal C, Arslan G, Topkan E et al. Comparison of conventional and CT‑based planning for intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer: target volume coverage and organs at risk doses. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2009; 28: 95. doi: 10.1186/ 1756– 9966– 28– 95.

8. Pötter R, Dimopoulos J, Bachtiary B et al. 3D conformal HDR‑ brachy‑ and external beam therapy plus simultaneous cisplatin for high‑risk cervical cancer: clinical experience with 3 year follow‑up. Radiother Oncol 2006; 79(1): 80– 86.

9. Pötter R, Dimopoulos J, Georg P et al. Clinical impact of MRI assisted dose volume adaptation and dose escalation in brachytherapy of locally advanced cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007; 83(2): 148– 155.

10. Dimopoulos JC, Lang S, Kirisits C et al. Dose‑volume histogram parameters and local tumor control in magnetic resonance image‑ guided cervical cancer brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75(1): 56– 63. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijrobp.2008.10.033.

11. ICRU Report 50. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy. Bethesda: International Commission for Radiation Units and Measurements, 1993: 71.

12. ICRU Report 62. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (Suppl to ICRU Report 50). Bethesda: International Commission for Radiation Units and Measurements, 1999: 52.

13. Lim K, Small W Jr, Portelance L et al. Consensus guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for intensity‑ modulated pelvic radiotherapy for the definitive treatment of cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79(2): 348– 355. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijrobp.2009.10.075.

14. Haie‑ Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E et al. Gynaecological (GYN) GEC‑ ESTRO Working Group. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC‑ ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 2005; 74(3): 235– 245.

15. Pötter R, Haie‑ Meder C, Van Limbergen E et al. GEC ESTRO Working Group. Recommendations from gynaecological (GYN) GEC ESTRO working group (II): concepts and terms in 3D image‑based treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy‑ 3D dose volume parameters and aspects of 3D image‑based anatomy, radiation physics, radiobiology. Radiother Oncol 2006; 78(1): 67– 77.

16. Viswanathan AN, Beriwal S, De Los Santos JF et al. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part II: high‑dose‑rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2012; 11(1): 47– 52. doi: 10.1016/ j.brachy.2011.07.002.

17. Lang S, Kirisits C, Dimopoulos J et al. Treatment planning for MRI assisted brachytherapy of gynecologic malignancies based on total dose constraints. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69(2): 619– 627.

18. Hanlon AL, Schultheiss TE, Hunt MA et al. Chronic rectal bleeding after high‑dose conformal treatment of prostate cancer warrants modification of existing morbidity scales. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38(1): 59– 63.

19. Storey MR, Pollack A, Zagars G et al. Complications from radiotherapy dose escalation in prostate cancer: preliminary results of a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48(3): 635– 642.

20. Doležel M, Vaňásek J, Odrážka K et al. The progress in the treatment of cervical cancer‑ 3D brachytherapy CT/ MR‑based planning. Ceska Gynekol 2008; 73(3): 144– 149.

21. Wachter‑ Gerstner N, Wachter S, Reinstadler E et al. The impact of sectional imaging on dose escalation in endocavitary HDR‑ brachytherapy of cervical cancer: results of a prospective comparative trial. Radiother Oncol 2003; 68(1): 51– 59.

22. Souhami L, Seymour R, Roman TN et al. Weekly cisplatin plus external beam radiotherapy and high dose rate brachytherapy in patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 27(4): 871– 878.

23. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para‑aortic radiation for high‑risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 340(15): 1137– 1143.

24. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P et al. Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20(4): 966– 972.

25. Chen SW, Liang JA, Yang SN et al. The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical cancer by high‑dose‑rate intracavitary brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2003; 67(1): 69– 76.

26. Fyles A, Keane TJ, Barton M et al. The effect of treatment duration in the local control of cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol 1992; 25(4): 273– 279.

27. Girinsky T, Rey A, Roche B et al. Overall treatment time in advanced cervical carcinomas: a critical parameter in treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 27(5): 1051– 1056.

28. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Castro‑Vita H et al. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. I. Impact of prolongation of overall treatment time and timing of brachytherapy on outcome of radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 32(5): 1275– 1288.

29. Kirisits C, Lang S, Dimopoulos J et al. The Vienna applicator for combined intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy of cervical cancer: design, application, treatment planning, and dosimetric results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65(2): 624– 630.

30. Popowski Y, Hiltbrand E, Joliat D et al. Open magnetic resonance imaging using titanium‑ zirconium needles: improved accuracy for interstitial brachytherapy implants? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47(3): 759– 765.

31. Dimopoulos JC, Kirisits C, Petric P et al. The Vienna applicator for combined intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy of cervical cancer: clinical feasibility and preliminary results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66(1): 83– 90.

32. Shiraiwa M, Joja I, Asakawa T et al. Cervical carcinoma: efficacy of thin‑section oblique axial T2– weighted images for evaluating parametrial invasion. Abdom Imaging 1999; 24(5): 514– 519.

33. Petric P, Dimopoulos J, Kirisits C et al. Inter‑ and intraobserver variation in HR‑ CTV contouring: intercomparison of transverse and paratransverse image orientation in 3D‑ MRI assisted cervix cancer brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2008; 89(2): 164– 171.