Background
Image-guided adaptive brachytherapy shows the ability to deliver high doses to tumors while sparing normal tissues. However, interfraction dose delivery introduces uncertainties to high dose estimation, which relates to normal tissue toxicity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the high-dose regions of two applicator approaches in brachytherapy.
Method
For 32 cervical cancer patients, the CT images from each fraction were wrapped to a reference image, and the displacement vector field (DVF) was calculated with a hybrid intensity-based deformable registration algorithm. The fractional dose was then accumulated to calculate the position and the overlap of high dose (D2cc) during multiple fractions.
Result
The overall Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of the deformation algorithm for the bladder and the rectum was (0.97 and 0.91). No significant difference was observed between the two applicators. However, the location of the intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) high-dose region was relatively concentrated. The overlap volume of bladder and rectum D2cc was 0.42 and 0.71, respectively, which was higher than that of interstitial brachytherapy (ISBT) (0.26 and 0.31). The cumulative dose was overestimated in ISBT cases when using the GEC-recommended method. The ratio of bladder and rectum D2cc to the GEC method was 0.99 and 1, respectively, which was higher than that of the ISBT method (0.96 and 0.94).
Conclusion
High-dose regions for brachytherapy based on different applicator types were different. The 3D-printed ICBT has better high-dose region consistency than freehand ISBT and hence is more predictable.
It is unlikely that this complication is directly related to the technique of IVF itself but rather the characteristics of women and the partner attending for assisted conception make them more at risk of molar pregnancies. The management includes prompt curettage and regular follow-up.
Objective To compare adenocarcinoma (AC) and adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) prognoses in patients with FIGO stage IB–IIA cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 240 patients with AC and 130 patients with ASC. Kaplan–Meier curves, Cox regression models, and log-rank tests were used for statistical analysis. Results Patients with ASC had higher frequencies of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) and serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) >5 ng/ml ( p =0.049 and p =0.013, respectively); moreover, they were much older ( P =0.029) than patients with AC. There were no clinically significant differences in overall survival between the groups. When stratified into three risk groups based on clinicopathological features, survival outcomes did not differ between patients with AC and those with ASC in the three risk groups. Multivariate analysis showed that lymph node metastasis (LNM) was an independent risk factor for RFS and OS in patients with AC and in patients with ASC. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) >5 ng/ml and SCC-Ag >5 ng/ml were independent risk factors for RFS and OS in patients with AC. In addition, among those stratified as intermediate-risk, patients with ASC who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) had a significantly better RFS and OS ( P =0.036, and P =0.047 for RFS and OS, respectively). Conclusion We did not find evidence to suggest that AC and ASC subtypes of cervical cancer were associated with different survival outcomes. CCRT is beneficial to survival for intermediate-risk-group patients with ASC, but not those with AC. Serum tumour markers can assist in evaluating prognosis and in providing additional information for patient-tailored therapy for cervical AC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.