Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
TECHNICAL REPORT
Year : 2007  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 116-120

High-dose-rate-intracavitary brachytherapy applications and the difference in the bladder and rectum doses: A study from rural centre of Maharashatra, India


Department of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology, Pravara Rural University (Deemed University), Loni, BK - 413 736, Ahmednagar, India

Correspondence Address:
Vandana S Jain
Dept. of Radiotherapy, Rural Medical College of PRU. Loni, BK-413 736, Ahmednagar
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.34693

Rights and Permissions

Aim : To report the difference in the bladder and rectum doses with different applications by the radiotherapists in the same patient of the carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated by multiple fractions of high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). Materials and Methods : Between January 2003 to December 2004, a total of 60 cases of the carcinoma uterine cervix were selected randomly for the retrospective analyses. All 60 cases were grouped in six groups according to the treating radiotherapist who did the HDR-ICBT application. Three radiotherapists were considered for this study, named A, B and C. Ten cases for each radiotherapist in whom all three applications were done by the same radiotherapist. And 10 cases for each radiotherapist with shared applications in the same patient (A+B, A+C and B+C). The bladder and rectal doses were calculated in reference to point "A" dose and were limited to 80% of prescribed point "A" dose, as per ICRU-38 recommendations. Received dose grouped in three groups- less then 80% (<80%), 80-100% and above 100% (>100%). A total of 180 applications for 60 patients were calculated for the above analyses. Results : There is a lot of difference in the bladder and rectal doses with the application by the different radiotherapists, even in the same patient with multiple fractions of HDR-ICBT. Applications by 'A' radiotherapist were within the limits in the self as well as in the shared groups more number of times, by 'B' radiotherapist was more times exceeding the limit and by 'C' radiotherapist doses were in between the A and B. Discussion and Conclusion : For the rectal and bladder doses most important factors are patient's age, disease stage, duration between EBRT and HDR-ICRT and patient anatomy, but these differences can be minimized to some extent by careful application, proper packing and proper fixation.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5714    
    Printed181    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded411    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal