Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of CT-based and MRI-based high-risk clinical target volumes in image guided-brachytherapy for cervical cancer, referencing recommendations from the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group (JROSG) and consensus statement guidelines from the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC ESTRO)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Working Group of the Gynecological Tumor Committee of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group (JROSG) published recommendations for contouring high-risk clinical target volumes (HR-CTV) on CT for 3-dimentional image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare HR-CTV delineated on CT, referencing recommendations from JROSG, with HR-CTV delineated on MRI, referencing consensus guidelines from the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC ESTRO).

Material and methods

Fourteen patients were evaluated. After the insertion of the CT/MR applicator into the patient, CT and MRI were performed. HR-CTVMR was delineated on MRI for clinical examination and HR-CTVCT was delineated on CT retrospectively referencing the MRI just before brachytherapy within a week. The volume and dosimetry of HR-CTV based on a 6 Gy dose of the Manchester system were evaluated.

Results

The median volumes of HR-CTVMR and HR-CTVCT were 24.4 ml (range, 13.6–50.4 ml) and 29.9 ml (range, 13.2–49.2 ml), respectively. Median D90 of HR-CTVMR and HR-CTVCT were 6.7 Gy (range, 5.8–10.1 Gy) and 6.8 Gy (range, 5.1–10.4 Gy), respectively.

Conclusion

Somewhat difference could be seen between HR-CTVMR and HR-CTVCT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, Avall-Lundqvist E, Fischerova D, Haie-Meder C, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2018;127:404–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E, Briot E, De Bradandere M, Dimopoulos J, et al. 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;74:235–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pötter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Limbergen E, Barillot I, De Bradandere M, Dimopoulos J, 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;78:67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dimopoulos JC, Petrow P, Tanderup K, Petric P, Berger D, Kirisits C, et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (IV): Basic principles and parameters for MR imaging within the frame of image-based adaptive cervix cancer brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2012;103:113–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tan LT. Implementation of image-guided brachytherapy for cervix cancer in the UK: progress update. Clin Oncol. 2011;23:681–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pavamani S, D’Souza DP, Portelance L, Craighead PS, Pearce AG, Traptow LL, et al. Image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer: a Canadian Brachytherapy Group survey. Brachytherapy. 2011;10:345–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Dyk S, Byram D, Bernshaw. Use of 3D imaging and awareness of GEC–ESTRO recommendations for cervix cancer brachytherapy throughout Australia and New Zealand. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010; 54:383–7.

  8. Viswanathan AN, Erickson BA. Three-dimensional imaging in gynecologic brachytherapy: a survey of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kusada T, Toita T, Ariga T, Maemoto H, Hashimoto S, Shiina H, et al. Computed tomography–based image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer: correlations between dose–volume parameters and clinical outcomes. J Radiat Res. 2018;59:67–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dimopoulos JC, Lang S, Kirisits C, Fidarova EF, Berger D, Georg P, 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;75:56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grover S, Harkenrider MM, Cho LP, Erickson B, Small C, Small W, et al. Image guided cervical brachytherapy: 2014 survey of the american brachytherapy society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94:598–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Phan T, Mula-Hussain L, Pavamani S, Peace A, D’Souza D, Patil NG, et al. The changing landscape of brachytherapy for cervical cancer: a Canadian practice survey. Curr Oncol. 2015;22:356–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Toita T, Ohno T, Ikushima H, Nishimura T, Uno T, Ogawa K, et al. National survey of intracavitary brachytherapy for intact uterine cervical cancer in Japan. J Radiat Res. 2018;569:469–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Viswanathan AN, Dimopoulos J, Kirisits C, Berger D, Pötter R. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-based contouring in cervical cancer brachytherapy: results of a prospective trial and preliminary guidelines for standardized contours. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:491–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Viswanathan AN, Erickson B, Gaffney DK, Bosch W, members of the CT/MR Atlas Committee Comparison and Consensus Guidelines for Delineation of Clinical Target Volume for CT- and MR-Based Brachytherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90:320–8.

  16. Ohno T, Wakatsuki M, Toita T, Kaneyasu Y, Yoshida K, Kato S, et al. Recommendations for high-risk clinical target volume definition with computed tomography for three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer patients. J Radiat Res. 2017;3:341–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hegazy N, Pötter R, Kirisits C, Berger D, Federico M, Sturdza A, et al. High-risk clinical target volume delineation in CT-guided cervical cancer brachytherapy: impact of information from FIGO stage with or without systematic inclusion of 3D documentation of clinical gynecological examination. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1345–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nemoto WM, Nozaki-Taguchi N, Togasaki G, Kanazawa A, Kurokawa M, Harada R, et al. New approach to relieving pain and distress during high-dose-rate intracavitary irradiation for cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2015;14:642–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nemoto WM, Iwai Y, Togasaki G, Kurokawa M, Harada R, Kobayashi H, et al. Preliminary results of a new workflow for MRI/CT-based image-guided brachytherapy in cervical carcinoma. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35:760–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dice LR. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology.1945;26 (3):297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Erickson B, Albano K, Gillin M. CT-guided interstitial implantation of gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol. 1996;36:699–709.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tait LM, Hoffman D, Benedict S, Valicenti R, Mayadev JS. The use of MRI deformable image registration for CT-based brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2016;15:333–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan

    Yuma Iwai, Miho Watanabe Nemoto, Takuro Horikoshi, Aki Kanazawa, Marie Kurokawa, Makoto Saito, Rintaro Harada, Hiroki Kobayashi & Takashi Uno

Authors
  1. Yuma Iwai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miho Watanabe Nemoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takuro Horikoshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aki Kanazawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marie Kurokawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Makoto Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rintaro Harada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hiroki Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takashi Uno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuma Iwai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

This study was approved by the local ethics review board and subjects’ informed consent were obtained.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iwai, Y., Nemoto, M.W., Horikoshi, T. et al. Comparison of CT-based and MRI-based high-risk clinical target volumes in image guided-brachytherapy for cervical cancer, referencing recommendations from the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group (JROSG) and consensus statement guidelines from the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC ESTRO). Jpn J Radiol 38, 899–905 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-020-00980-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-020-00980-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation