Determining DVH parameters for combined external beam and brachytherapy treatment: 3D biological dose adding for patients with cervical cancer

Purpose: To compare two methods of DVH parameter determination for combined external beam and brachytherapy treatment of cervical cancer.

Materials and methods: Clinical treatment plans from five patients were used in this study. We simulated two applications given with PDR (32 x 60 cGy per application, given hourly) or HDR (4 x 7 Gy in two applications; each application of two fractions of 7 Gy, given within 17 h) standard and optimised treatment plans, all combined with IMRT (25 x 1.8 Gy). Additionally, we simulated an external beam (EBRT) boost to pathological lymph nodes or the parametrium (7 x 2 Gy). We determined D90 of the high-risk CTV (HR-CTV) and D(2 cc) of bladder and rectum in EQD2 in two ways. (1) 'Parameter adding': assuming a uniform contribution of the EBRT dose distribution and adding the values of DVH parameters for the two brachytherapy insertions, and (2) 'distributions adding': summing 3D biological dose distributions of IMRT and brachytherapy plans and subsequently determining the values of the DVH parameters. We took alpha/beta=10 Gy for HR-CTV, alpha/beta=3 Gy otherwise and half-time of repair 1.5 h.

Results: Without EBRT boost, 'parameter adding' yielded a good approximation. With an EBRT boost to lymph nodes, the total D90 HR-CTV was underestimated by 2.6 (SD 1.3)% for PDR and 2.8 (SD 1.4)% for HDR. This was even worse with a parametrium boost: 9.1 (SD 6.2)% for PDR and 9.9 (SD 6.2)% for HDR.

Conclusion: Without an EBRT boost 'parameter adding', as proposed by the GEC-ESTRO, yielded accurate results for the values for DVH parameters. If an EBRT boost is given 'distributions adding' should be considered.