{"title":"Current practices and challenges in inverse planning for gynecologic brachytherapy: insights from a multi-institutional study.","authors":"Hiroyuki Okamoto, Ayaka Nagao, Masahiro Morimoto, Setsuo Tamenaga, Yoshihiro Ueda, Tomoko Kawamura, Noriko Ii, Kenji Yoshida, Hiromi Sakaguchi, Soichiro Ito, Yoshifumi Oku, Keiji Matsumoto, Naoya Murakami, Noriyuki Okonogi, Jun Takatsu, Kotaro Iijima, Kazutoshi Murata, Hiroki Ushijima, Ken Ando, Tatsuya Ohno","doi":"10.1093/jrr/rrag084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated the feasibility and reproducibility of inverse planning (IP) in gynecologic high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) across ten institutions (five IP and five manual). Two pre-defined cases (high-risk clinical target volume, CTVHR: 62.8 and 27.4 cm3) included the organs at risk (OARs), a tandem, ovoids, and 8 and 3 interstitial needles, respectively. Each institution generated BT plans according to its policy, assuming 30 Gy/15 fractions of whole-pelvis irradiation and 20 Gy/10 fractions of central shielding. Plans were evaluated using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. Dwell-time distributions were compared with conventional Manchester-based pear-shaped plans to identify deviations (e.g. needle dominance and high-dose characteristics) that may not be captured by DVH alone. Institutional interviews assessed clinical acceptability and optimization strategies. All plans were considered clinically acceptable, with no significant differences between IP and non-IP groups in CTVHR D90% and OARs ${{D}}_{{2}\\ {\\mathrm{cm}}^{{3}}}$. IP institutions used institution-specific strategies to preserve uterine dose conformity, including fixing dwell times for selected applicators and applying optimization constraints based on Manchester-derived contours, delineated ovoids or delineated uterine structures. Overall, IP plans were comparable to non-IP plans for CTVHR D90%, CTVHR V100% (cm3) and OARs ${{D}}_{{2}\\ {\\mathrm{cm}}^{{3}}}$. In contrast, differences in dose distribution around the uterine fundus and the wide range of the body V100% (cm3) suggested varying institutional strategies for fundus dose. These findings highlight the need for planning QA that incorporates dwell-time review in addition to DVH parameters, and provide a foundation for optimizing and standardizing IP in gynecologic BT to improve planning reproducibility and patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16922,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiation Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiation Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrag084","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study investigated the feasibility and reproducibility of inverse planning (IP) in gynecologic high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) across ten institutions (five IP and five manual). Two pre-defined cases (high-risk clinical target volume, CTVHR: 62.8 and 27.4 cm3) included the organs at risk (OARs), a tandem, ovoids, and 8 and 3 interstitial needles, respectively. Each institution generated BT plans according to its policy, assuming 30 Gy/15 fractions of whole-pelvis irradiation and 20 Gy/10 fractions of central shielding. Plans were evaluated using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. Dwell-time distributions were compared with conventional Manchester-based pear-shaped plans to identify deviations (e.g. needle dominance and high-dose characteristics) that may not be captured by DVH alone. Institutional interviews assessed clinical acceptability and optimization strategies. All plans were considered clinically acceptable, with no significant differences between IP and non-IP groups in CTVHR D90% and OARs ${{D}}_{{2}\ {\mathrm{cm}}^{{3}}}$. IP institutions used institution-specific strategies to preserve uterine dose conformity, including fixing dwell times for selected applicators and applying optimization constraints based on Manchester-derived contours, delineated ovoids or delineated uterine structures. Overall, IP plans were comparable to non-IP plans for CTVHR D90%, CTVHR V100% (cm3) and OARs ${{D}}_{{2}\ {\mathrm{cm}}^{{3}}}$. In contrast, differences in dose distribution around the uterine fundus and the wide range of the body V100% (cm3) suggested varying institutional strategies for fundus dose. These findings highlight the need for planning QA that incorporates dwell-time review in addition to DVH parameters, and provide a foundation for optimizing and standardizing IP in gynecologic BT to improve planning reproducibility and patient outcomes.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Radiation Research (JRR) is an official journal of The Japanese Radiation Research Society (JRRS), and the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (JASTRO).
Since its launch in 1960 as the official journal of the JRRS, the journal has published scientific articles in radiation science in biology, chemistry, physics, epidemiology, and environmental sciences. JRR broadened its scope to include oncology in 2009, when JASTRO partnered with the JRRS to publish the journal.
Articles considered fall into two broad categories:
Oncology & Medicine - including all aspects of research with patients that impacts on the treatment of cancer using radiation. Papers which cover related radiation therapies, radiation dosimetry, and those describing the basis for treatment methods including techniques, are also welcomed. Clinical case reports are not acceptable.
Radiation Research - basic science studies of radiation effects on livings in the area of physics, chemistry, biology, epidemiology and environmental sciences.
Please be advised that JRR does not accept any papers of pure physics or chemistry.
The journal is bimonthly, and is edited and published by the JRR Editorial Committee.