PurposeThis study is intended to compare dose-volume parameters evaluated using different forward planning- optimization techniques, involving two applicator systems in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. It looks for the best applicator-optimization combination to fulfill recommended dose-volume objectives in different high-dose-rate (HDR) fractionation schedules.Material and methodsWe used tandem-ring and Fletcher-style tandem-ovoid applicator in same patients in two fractions of brachytherapy. Six plans were generated for each patient utilizing 3 forward optimization techniques for each applicator used: equal dwell weight/times (‘no optimization’), ‘manual dwell weight/times’, and ‘graphical’. Plans were normalized to left point A and dose of 8 Gy was prescribed. Dose volume and dose point parameters were compared.ResultsWithout graphical optimization, maximum width and thickness of volume enclosed by 100% isodose line, dose to 90%, and 100% of clinical target volume (CTV); minimum, maximum, median, and average dose to both rectum and bladder are significantly higher with Fletcher applicator. Even if it is done, dose to both points B, minimum dose to CTV, and treatment time; dose to 2 cc (D2cc) rectum and rectal point etc.; D2cc, minimum, maximum, median, and average dose to sigmoid colon; D2cc of bladder remain significantly higher with this applicator. Dose to bladder point is similar (p > 0.05) between two applicators, after all optimization techniques.ConclusionsFletcher applicator generates higher dose to both CTV and organs at risk (2 cc volumes) after all optimization techniques. Dose restriction to rectum is possible using graphical optimization only during selected HDR fractionation schedules. Bladder always receives dose higher than recommended, and 2 cc sigmoid colon always gets permissible dose. Contrarily, graphical optimization with ring applicators fulfills all dose volume objectives in all HDR fractionations practiced.