Journal of Medical Physics
 Home | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscription | Login  The official journal of Association of Medical Physicists of India      
 Users online: 100  Home  EMail this page Print this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 
TECHNICAL NOTE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 44  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 287-291

A dosimetric analysis of the rectal doses in intracavitary brachytherapy of carcinoma cervix: A prospective study from a single institute


Department of Radiation Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Aparna Suryadevara
Department of Radiation Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_50_19

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Carcinoma cervix is a common gynecologic malignancy in India and is treated with radical chemoradiation where intracavitary brachytherapy (ICR) is an integral part. In ICR of cervix, the two-dimensional (2D) point-based dosimetry cervix is the most common method used in high-volume centers with rectal dose calculation at modified ICRU rectal point with rectal wire placement. The rectal dose measurement using this method underestimates the dose to the rectum, and rectal dose also varies with the type of applicator used. The aim of our study is to compare the rectal dose calculated by ICRU 38 method versus rectal dose calculated by the rectal wire method using Henschke applicator. Materials and Methods: This is a single-institute, dosimetric comparison study done prospectively. Fifty patients were planned for ICR after 2D orthogonal radiograph-based, computer planning by iridium 192 high-dose rate remote afterloading technique after placing the appropriate Henschke applicator. The vaginal packing was done using sterile gauze with contrast material for defining the ICRU 38 rectal point, and a rectal wire was placed for the modified ICRU rectal point. Rectal doses were calculated by both the methods and compared. Results: The modified ICRU rectal point recorded a lower rectal dose (mean of 25%) compared to ICRU 38 rectal point in the study patients. There were ten patients (20%) with either too much or too little contrast material which made the visualization of the rectal point and radiation planning difficult. P value by paired t-test method was 0.0001, which was statistically significant. Conclusion: The modified ICRU rectal point is easier to visualize than ICRU 38 method (100% vs. 80%) for dosimetry, but it underestimates the rectal doses when compared to ICRU 38 rectal point. There needs to be a correction factor applied (25% in our study for Henschke applicator) when evaluating the rectal doses calculated by rectal wire method, to reduce the rectal toxicity.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed207    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded67    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal