|Year : 2021 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 191-197
Estimation and comparison of integral dose to target and organs at risk in three-dimensional computed tomography image-based treatment planning of carcinoma uterine cervix with two high-dose-rate brachytherapy sources: 60Co and 192Ir
Suresh Yadav1, OP Singh2, S Choudhary3, Dinesh Kumar Saroj4, Veenita Yogi2, Brijesh Goswami5
1 Department of Radiotherapy, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal; Department of Physics, Rabindranath Tagore University, Raisen, Madhya Pradesh, India
2 Department of Radiotherapy, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
3 Department of Physics, Rabindranath Tagore University, Raisen, Madhya Pradesh, India
4 Department of Radiotherapy, Chirayu Medical College and Hospital, Bhopal, India
5 Department of Radiotherapy, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, India
|Date of Submission||22-Mar-2019|
|Date of Decision||16-May-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||10-Jun-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||28-Jan-2020|
Department of Radiotherapy, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal - 462 001, Madhya Pradesh
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: Iridium-192 (192Ir) has been a widely accepted radioisotope for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Recently, Cobalt-60 (60Co) radioisotope with a longer half-life (5.26 years) has been gaining popularity due to economic and logistical reasons as compared with the traditional 192Ir.
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the integral dose (ID) to the target and organs at risk (OARs) with two HDR brachytherapy sources in brachytherapy treatment of carcinoma uterine cervix to find appropriate HDR radioisotopes for clinical benefit.
Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 52 computed tomography image-based brachytherapy plans of 52 patients who have received intracavitary treatment with 192Ir HDR source. For each patient plan, one additional set of plan was created using 60Co source in place of 192Ir source keeping the same dwell position, and again dose was optimized. The volume and mean dose for target, OARs, and volume structures of 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% were recorded for the estimation and comparison of ID.
Results: The mean ID to high-risk clinical target volume was significantly higher by 5.84% in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. For OARs, the mean ID to the rectum was significantly higher by 2.60% in 60Co plan as compared to 192Ir plan, whereas for bladder and sigmoid colon, it was lower in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. The mean ID of central dose volume structures of 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% was higher by 12.97%, 9.77%, 8.16%, 6.10%, and 3.22%, respectively, in 60Co plan than that of 192Ir plan.
Conclusion: The results of our study concluded that 192Ir HDR radioisotope should be preferred for intracavitary brachytherapy due to its ideal physical characteristics for better clinical outcomes.
Keywords: 192Ir,60Co, carcinoma uterine cervix, high-dose-rate brachytherapy, integral dose
|How to cite this article:|
Yadav S, Singh O P, Choudhary S, Saroj DK, Yogi V, Goswami B. Estimation and comparison of integral dose to target and organs at risk in three-dimensional computed tomography image-based treatment planning of carcinoma uterine cervix with two high-dose-rate brachytherapy sources: 60Co and 192Ir. J Can Res Ther 2021;17:191-7
|How to cite this URL:|
Yadav S, Singh O P, Choudhary S, Saroj DK, Yogi V, Goswami B. Estimation and comparison of integral dose to target and organs at risk in three-dimensional computed tomography image-based treatment planning of carcinoma uterine cervix with two high-dose-rate brachytherapy sources: 60Co and 192Ir. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 28];17:191-7. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2021/17/1/191/277100
| > Introduction|| |
Cancer of the uterine cervix is the most common malignancy of female genital organ in the developing world. In India, 96,922 new cases and 60,078 deaths of cancer cervix had been registered in 2018 according to a population-based registry program. In developing countries, most cancers are diagnosed in advanced stages, which make them difficult to treat, and carcinoma of the uterine cervix (Ca Cx) is no exception. Intracavitary high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy has become an established and definitive treatment for Ca Cx either alone or along with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). By the 1980s, Iridium-192 (192Ir) had become the most popular radionuclide for HDR brachytherapy due to its smaller physical size. While the availability of miniaturized high-specific-activity Cobalt-60 (60Co) sources for HDR brachytherapy is a recent development, the use of physically larger 60Co sources in low-dose-rate applications has a long history dating back to the 1960s and 1970s with Cathetron, Ralstron, and Selectron treatment units reported in 1964 by Henschke et al.
In the recent 10 years, the adoption and use of 60Co sources in modern HDR brachytherapy units is gaining popularity worldwide in radiotherapy centers. These new systems utilize miniaturized 60Co sources, rather than the traditional 192Ir sources, and are gaining popularity due to longer source replacement intervals, which leads to lower operating costs and a reduced frequency of movement of radioactive sources between countries, compared to 192Ir. Typical remote afterloading HDR brachytherapy units use 192Ir source with a nominal source activity of around 10 Ci (370 GBq) or 60Co source with an initial nominal activity of 2 Ci (74 GBq). The longer half-life (5.26 years) of 60Co radioisotope is the major advantage in comparison to the shorter half-life (73.8 days) of 192Ir radioisotope. The use of 60Co radioisotopes in HDR brachytherapy applications will, therefore, cut down the number of frequent source exchanges significantly and thus seems to be a more economical alternative to 192Ir HDR radioisotope. Recently, 60Co radioisotopes have become available with identical geometrical sizes as miniaturized 192Ir radioisotopes [Table 1].,,, The different physical characteristics of 192Ir and 60Co HDR radioisotopes are listed in [Table 1]. Strohmaier and Zwierzchowski have reviewed the dose deposition differences around single 60Co and 192Ir source (anisotropy, radial dose function, and isodose curves) and found no advantage and disadvantage. This review was based on the available work done by Venselaar et al., Richter et al., and Park et al., who confined their analysis to point dose and qualitative isodose comparisons only.
|Table 1: Physical characteristic of Iridium-192 and Cobalt-60 radioisotopes|
Click here to view
The main advantage of brachytherapy technique is that it delivers high localized radiation dose to tumor volume with dose falls very rapidly outside; hence, less integral dose (ID) to normal tissues is received. The inverse square law is the most dominant physical effect in brachytherapy. The higher photon mean energy of 60Co (1.25 MeV) as compared with192Ir (0.38 MeV) leads higher dose to tissues at larger distances from the sources. ID is the measure of total energy absorbed in treated volume. The ID attempts to describe energy deposition within the whole body, and it is historically considered a physical quantity capable of representing the “physical aggression” and risk of complications due to radiation therapy. Albeit it is generally accepted that the probability of damage to normal tissue and risk of secondary malignancy increases with the increase in ID, this quantity is rarely utilized to predict clinical outcome. Over the last two decades, advancement in technology, fabrication of newer radioisotopes, progress in imaging (computed tomography [CT] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), and computer-controlled afterloading machine have opened the gate of a new era of brachytherapy. With three-dimensional (3D) image-based planning, it may be feasible to assess the relationship of dose–volume response by evaluating the combined dose from EBRT and brachytherapy.
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the ID to the target and organs at risk (OARs) by two HDR brachytherapy sources in brachytherapy treatment of Ca Cx to find appropriate HDR radioisotopes for clinical benefit.
| > Materials and Methods|| |
In this retrospective study, 52 3D CT image-based plans of 52 patients (only the first fraction plan of each patient) who have received intracavitary treatment for Ca Cx with HDR brachytherapy were selected. The mean age of the patients was 49.56 ± 7.34 years, and their The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage range was IIB–IVA. All the patients selected for this study were previously treated with 192Ir HDR source. All the patients had received a dose of 46–50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction for 23–25 fraction over a period of 5 weeks) by EBRT either on a 6 MV medical linear accelerator or on a tele-cobalt unit using either four-field box technique or two parallel opposed Anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP-PA) fields before brachytherapy treatments. Followed by EBRT, all the patients were planned to receive a dose of 21 Gy (7 Gy per fraction for three fractions over a period of 3 weeks) by means of intracavitary brachytherapy using a Fletcher-style tandem and ovoid (T and O) applicator set with a fixed geometry. All patients were explained about the CT image-based intracavitary brachytherapy procedure prior to applicator insertion, and informed consents were taken. Applicator reconstruction and contouring of critical organs (bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon) and tumor (high-risk clinical target volume [HR-CTV]) were performed by a radiation oncologist following the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS)/ The Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) guidelines. The CT scan had a slice thickness of 2.5 mm. The dose was prescribed at 7 Gy/fraction on point “A” as per the ABS guidelines. The treatment plans were optimized in such a way that the total EQD2 dose including EBRT and brachytherapy was kept at ≤75 Gy for rectum and sigmoid colon and ≤90 Gy for bladder. To mitigate interpersonal variations, reconstruction and contouring were done by a single radiation oncologist, and planning was done by a single medical physicist.
In this retrospective study, re-plans were created on CT image-based plans of patients who were already planned and treated with 192Ir HDR source using a fixed-geometry T and O applicator on Varian Gamma Med Plus (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) HDR machine. For each plan generated with 192Ir, one additional set of plan was created using 60Co in place of 192Ir source keeping the same dwell positions, and again, the dose was optimized. Dose optimization and planning objective in 60Co plans were kept similar to 192Ir plans. For each patient, a total of two plans were generated. Thus, a total of 104 3D CT image-based plans were evaluated in this study. Varian Brachy Vision treatment planning system (TPS) version 8.9 (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for treatment planning.192Ir Gamma Med Plus HDR source was formerly commissioned in TPS and routinely used for HDR treatment planning. Bebig 60Co (Co0.A86) HDR source manufactured by Eckert and Ziegler BEBIG GmbH, Germany was modeled into Brachy vision TPS using dosimetric data as input from Granero et al. The validations of TPS calculations for 60Co were done by performing manual calculations using AAPM TG-43 formalism,, and results were in good agreement.
ID is the total energy absorbed by the organ and estimated based on mean organ dose and mean organ density and volume as defined in Equation 1 below:
ID = D− × ρ− × V (Gy × kg), (1)
where D− is mean organ dose, ρ− is mean organ density, and V is organ volume., In the present study, organ was considered uniform density, and ID was estimated by Equation 2 given below:
ID = Mean dose × volume (Gy × L) (2)
For estimation and comparison of ID of two HDR brachytherapy sources, the volume and mean dose were recorded. As per the GEC-ESTRO, ABS, and ICRU 89 guidelines, the dose–volume parameters such as V400%, V200%, V150%, V100%, and V50% (volume covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose lines of prescribed dose, respectively) were considered and converted into volume structures using tandem length of 6.0 cm for all plans. For estimation of ID, the volume and mean dose of tumor (HR-CTV), OARs (bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon), and dose volume structures of 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% were recorded and evaluated.
Statistical Software Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 (IBM Corporation, USA) software was used for statistical analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed to determine the mean and standard deviation (SD) of IDs of target and OARs. A paired two-tailed t-test was performed to compare the ID from two radioisotopes (192Ir and 60Co) at a confidence level of 95%. P < 0.05 was considered for the significance of statistical inferences.
| > Results|| |
The dosimetric values (volume and mean dose) of target (HR-CTV) and OARs (bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon) for treatment plans generated with 192Ir and 60Co radioisotopes are summarized in [Table 2]. These dosimetric values of target and OARs were evaluated using cumulative dose–volume histograms as shown in [Figure 1]. The volume of target and OARs were expressed as mean ± SD in liter (L). The mean dose for target and OAR were expressed as mean ± SD in Gy. The ID for target and OARs was estimated using Equation 2. The comparison of ID for target and OARs between treatment plans generated with 192Ir and 60Co is compiled in [Table 3]. The ID for target and OARs was also expressed as mean ± SD in Gy.L.
|Table 2: Dosimetric values of target (high-risk clinical target volume) and organs at risk (bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon) for plans generated with Iridium-192 and Cobalt-60 high-dose-rate radioisotopes|
Click here to view
|Figure 1: Cumulative dose–volume histograms for high-risk clinical target volume and rectum, bladder, and sigmoid colon (s. colon) in Iridium-192 and Cobalt-60 plans|
Click here to view
|Table 3: Comparison of integral dose for target (high-risk clinical target volume) and organs at risk (bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon) between Iridium-192 and Cobalt-60 plans|
Click here to view
The results demonstrated that the ID for HR-CTV was 0.788 ± 0.090 Gy.L and 0.834 ± 0.095 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For HR-CTV, the mean ID was 5.84% higher in 60Co plan than 192Ir plan. There was a significant difference between 192Ir plan and 60Co plan (P < 0.05). The ID for bladder was 0.126 ± 0.049 Gy.L and 0.125 ± 0.048 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For bladder, the mean ID was 0.79% lower in 60Co plan than 192Ir plan. There was a significant difference between 192Ir plan and 60Co plan (P = 0.001 < 0.05). The ID for rectum was 0.077 ± 0.019 Gy.L and 0.079 ± 0.019 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For rectum, the mean ID was 2.60% higher in 60Co than 192Ir plan. There was a significant difference between 192Ir and 60Co plans (P < 0.05). The ID for sigmoid colon was 0.115 ± 0.035 Gy.L and 0.114 ± 0.035 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For sigmoid colon, the mean ID was 0.87% lower in 60Co plan than 192Ir plan. There was a significant difference between 192Ir and 60Co plans (P < 0.05).
[Figure 2] and [Figure 3] illustrate the volumetric structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose line of prescribed dose for 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. The dosimetric values (volume and mean dose) of structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose line of prescribed dose are summarized in [Table 4] for treatment plans generated with 192Ir and 60Co HDR radioisotopes. The volume of these structures was expressed as mean ± SD in L. The mean dose to these structures was expressed as mean ± SD in Gy. The volumes of these structures include the applicator volume. The ID for structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose lines was estimated by multiplying volume and mean dose using Equation 2. The comparison of ID for structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose lines between treatment plans generated with 192Ir and 60Co HDR radioisotopes is presented in [Table 5]. The ID of these structures was expressed as mean ± SD in Gy.L.
|Figure 2: Illustration of volumetric structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose line of prescribed dose around target for Iridium-192 plan in (a) transversal view, (b) frontal view, (c) sagittal view, and (d) model view|
Click here to view
|Figure 3: Illustration of volumetric structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose line of prescribed dose around target for Cobalt-60 plan in (a) transversal view, (b) frontal view, (c) sagittal view, and (d) model view|
Click here to view
|Table 4: Dosimetric values of structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose line for plans generated with Iridium-192 and Cobalt-60 high-dose-rate radioisotopes|
Click here to view
|Table 5: Comparison of integral dose for 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose line structures between Iridium-192 and Cobalt-60 plans|
Click here to view
The results demonstrated that the ID for 400% isodose line structures was 0.455 ± 0.024 Gy.L and 0.514 ± 0.068 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For structures covering 400% isodose line, the mean ID was significantly higher by 12.97% in 60Co plan than192Ir plan (P < 0.05). For 200% isodose line structure, the ID was 0.983 ± 0.041 Gy.L and 1.079 ± 0.043 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For structures covering 200% isodose line, the mean ID was significantly higher by 9.77% in 60Co plan than 192Ir plan (P < 0.05). For 150% isodose line structure, the ID was 1.262 ± 0.049 Gy.L and 1.365 ± 0.052 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For structures covering 150% isodose line, the mean ID was significantly higher by 8.16% in 60Co plan than 1292Ir plan (P < 0.05). The ID for 100% isodose line structure was 1.720 ± 0.067 Gy.L and 1.825 ± 0.070 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For structures covering 100% isodose line, the mean ID was significantly higher (6.10%) in 60Co plan than that in 1292Ir plan (P < 0.05). The ID for 50% isodose line structure was 2.706 ± 0.108 Gy.L and 2.793 ± 0.108 Gy.L in 192Ir and 60Co plans, respectively. For structures covering 50% isodose line, the mean ID was also significantly higher (3.22%) in 60Co plan than that in 1292Ir plan (P < 0.05). Thus, for structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose line of the prescribed dose, there was significantly higher mean ID in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan.
| > Discussion|| |
The physical characteristics for an ideal HDR brachytherapy source should have (i) optimum gamma energy to provide maximum dose deposition and simultaneously low enough to avoid radiation protection problem. The ideal gamma energy range is 0.2-0.4 MeV; (ii) longer half-life to avoid frequent source change interval; and (iii) higher specific activity for fabrication of miniaturized source which results in greater flexibility. The optimum gamma energy (mean 0.38 Mev) and higher specific activity of 192Ir radioisotopes are advantageous over 60Co radioisotopes. The only one disadvantage is shorter half-life (73.8 days) of 192Ir which necessitates source replacement at an interval of 4 months. The longer half-life (5.26 years) of 60Co offers longer source replacement interval, and the higher gamma energy (mean 1.25 MeV) requires thicker shielding for radiation protection.
The results of our study show that mean ID for HR-CTV was significantly higher in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. Palmer et al. demonstrated that 60Co source delivers higher doses along the continuation of applicator axis than 192Ir source, as a result of less self-absorption inside the line source of 60Co (higher gamma energy) than 192Ir. These differences were due to variations in inherent physical characteristics of 60Co and Ir192 sources. Palmer et al.'s study demonstrated that there was small but statistically significant hike in the volume of HR-CTV covered by prescription dose in 60Co plan than 192Ir plan. These observations were for the treatment plans created under identical loading and point “A-” based dose prescription method. The dose distribution differences can be eliminated by opting dose prescription to HR-CTV and dwell time optimization technique. Whereas the dose prescription to point “A” in intracavitary HDR brachytherapy is still common, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The results of 2014 survey by the ABS showed that the use of point “A-” and HR-CTV-based dose prescription was 42% and 52%, in comparison of 76% and 14% in 2007 ABS survey. The updated ABS 2014 survey by Grover et al. reported that in the UK, the use of CT, MRI, and X-ray in image-based brachytherapy planning was at 95%, 34%, and 15%, respectively.
The results of our study show that the rectum mean doses were higher in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. Thus, mean ID for rectum was significantly higher in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. Whereas for bladder and sigmoid colon, the mean doses were lower in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. Hence, in the current study, the mean ID for bladder and sigmoid colon was significantly lower in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. Venselaar et al. study investigated the dose values at large distances from two brachytherapy sources 60Co and 192Ir, for the evaluation of integral dose to organs far distant from target volume. They concluded that for distances up to 20 cm, the dose values from 192Ir source were slightly higher (proportion of 1.14 at 10 cm and 1.05 at 20 cm), but for distances larger than 25 cm, the dose values from 60Co sources were higher (proportion 1.16 at 30 cm, 1.68 at 45 cm, and 2.57 at 60 cm). These results suggested higher IDs for 60Co brachytherapy source than 192Ir source. Another study by Richter et al. concluded that for the same dose in target, the ID was lower in 60Co plan compared to 192Ir plan within a radius of 20 cm, but outside this limit, the relationship was reversed due to higher photon mean energy of 60Co source.
Park et al. compared the dose distributions of HDR brachytherapy planning based on two-dimensional image using 60Co (BEBIG) and 192Ir (microselectron) sources under identical loading patterns. The results of Park et al. study reported an average increase of 0.83±1.48 % to the ICRU rectum reference point and an average decrease of 1.14±0.61 % to the ICRU bladder reference point, when using 60Co source instead of 192Ir source.
In our current research, the results show that the volumes and mean doses of structures covering 400%, 200%, 150%, 100%, and 50% isodose lines were higher in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. Thus, mean ID of these structures was significantly higher in 60Co plan than that in 192Ir plan. This indicates that a higher central volume around the targets bearing applicators is probably gaining a higher ID in 60Co plan than 192Ir plan. In few deliberations on the clinical implications of overdose region, Prabhakar has reviewed various studies in his research and concluded that hike in high-dose region may be disadvantageous.
Ntekim et al. in their study on acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity associated with 60Co source in brachytherapy treatment of Ca Cx reported that 3% of patients had Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity, while all others had ≤ Grade 2 toxicity, and this is comparable with previous results. Mosalaei et al. in their study concluded that the overall survival and disease-free survival rate was 62.4% for 10 years, with local recurrences in 12.2% of patients, and less than 6% of patients experienced severe gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity in HDR brachytherapy treatment of Ca Cx with 60Co source. Ntekim et al. and Mosalaei et al. demonstrated 60Co to be a tolerable isotope with some extent of toxicity and to be economical in low-resource settings for HDR brachytherapy treatments of Ca Cx. Ordinarily, higher ID increases the possibility of secondary cancers and also increases the acute toxicities of normal tissues. Nguyen et al. concluded that deposited radiation dose is related to absorbed energy into the tissue which might be the outcome of cytotoxic injuries of cells distant from the field. The higher ID to normal tissue or organ might not cause prompt concern, but it may have late consequences.
| > Conclusion|| |
The results of our study demonstrated that the use of 60Co HDR radioisotopes in brachytherapy treatment for Ca Cx would produce higher ID to target, rectum, and central dose volume structures around applicator as compared to 192Ir radioisotopes, whereas theoretically, 60Co radioisotopes due to their higher mean gamma energy produce less absorption, attenuation, and scattering effects in comparison to 192Ir radioisotopes. The reduction in these effects will result in lower dose to nearest tissues (target) and higher dose to distant tissues (OARs) with 60Co radioisotopes than with 192Ir radioisotopes. The overestimations of these effects are based on TG-43 formalism for dose calculation in brachytherapy planning. Our study emphasized that 192Ir HDR radioisotope should be preferred in intracavitary brachytherapy due to its ideal physical characteristics and biological beneficial effect on tumor. It also delivers less ID to OARs due to higher attenuation. This study would be helpful to choose appropriate HDR radioisotopes for better clinical outcomes.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| > References|| |
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, et al.
Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2019;144:1941-53.
Mobit PN, Packianathan S, He R, Yang CC. Comparison of Axxent-Xoft, 192
Ir and 60
Co high-dose-rate brachytherapy sources for image-guided brachytherapy treatment planning for cervical cancer. Br J Radiol 2015;88:20150010.
Palmer A, Hayman O, Muscat S. Treatment planning study of the 3D dosimetric differences between Co-60 and Ir-192 sources in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervix cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2012;4:52-9.
Henschke UK, Hilaris BS, Mahan GD. Remote afterloading with intracavitary applicators. Radiology 1964;83:344-5.
Salminen EK, Kiel K, Ibbott GS, Joiner MC, Rosenblatt E, Zubizarreta E, et al.
International conference on advances in radiation oncology (ICARO): Outcomes of an IAEA meeting. Radiat Oncol 2011;6:11.
Ntekim A, Adenipekun A, Akinlade B, Campbell O. High dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: Preliminary experience with cobalt 60 radionuclide source – A prospective study. Clin Med Insights Oncol 2010;4:89-94.
Khan FM, Gibbons JP. The Physics of Radiation Therapy. 5th
ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2014.
Andrássy M, Niatsetsky Y, Pérez-Calatayud J. Co-60 verses Ir-192 in HDR brachytherapy: Scientific and technological comparison. Rev Fis Med 2012;13:125-30.
Sinnatamby M, Nagarajan V, Kanipakam Sathyanarayana R, Karunanidhi G, Singhavajala V. Study of the dosimetric differences between 192
Ir and 60
Co sources of high dose rate brachytherapy for breast interstitial implant. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2016;21:453-9.
Gurjar OP, Batra M, Bagdare P, Kaushik S, Tyagi A, Naik A, et al.
Dosimetric analysis of Co-60 source based high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy: A case series of ten patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2016;21:201-6.
Strohmaier S, Zwierzchowski G. Comparison of 60
Co and 192
Ir sources in HDR brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2011;3:199-208.
Venselaar JL, van der Giessen PH, Dries WJ. Measurement and calculation of the dose at large distances from brachytherapy sources: Cs-137, 192
Ir, and 60
Co. Med Phys 1996;23:537-43.
Richter J, Baier K, Flentje M. Comparison of 60cobalt and 192iridium sources in high dose rate afterloading brachytherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:187-92.
Park DW, Kim YS, Park SH, Choi EK, Ahn SD, Lee SW, et al.
A comparison of dose distributions of HDR intracavitary brachytherapy using different sources and treatment planning systems. Appl Radiat Isot 2009;67:1426-31.
D'Arienzo M, Masciullo SG, de Sanctis V, Osti MF, Chiacchiararelli L, Enrici RM. Integral dose and radiation-induced secondary malignancies: Comparison between stereotactic body radiation therapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2012;9:4223-40.
Granero D, Pérez-Calatayud J, Ballester F. Technical note: Dosimetric study of a new co-60 source used in brachytherapy. Med Phys 2007;34:3485-8.
Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G, Weaver KA, Williamson JF, Meigooni AS. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM radiation therapy committee task group no. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys 1995;22:209-34.
Rivard MJ, Coursey BM, DeWerd LA, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Ibbott GS, et al.
Update of AAPM task group no. 43 report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys 2004;31:633-74.
Shi C, Peñagarícano J, Papanikolaou N. Comparison of IMRT treatment plans between linac and helical tomotherapy based on integral dose and inhomogeneity index. Med Dosim 2008;33:215-21.
Shirani Tak Abi K, Nedaie HA, Hassani H, Naderi M, Babaie M, Samei M, et al
. The calculation and comparison of integral dose for the rectum, bladder, right and left femur heads in two methods of prostate cancer radiotherapy: S.A.S IMRT vs. 3D CRT. BCCR 2013;5:10-8.
Pötter R, Haie-Meder C, Van Limbergen E, Barillot I, De Brabandere M, Dimopoulos J, et al.
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.
Viswanathan AN, Thomadsen B; American Brachytherapy Society Cervical Cancer Recommendations Committee, American Brachytherapy Society. American brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part I: General principles. Brachytherapy 2012;11:33-46.
ICRU Report no. 89. Prescribing, recording, and reporting brachytherapy for cancer of cervix, ICRU report 89. J ICRU 2013;13.Doi: doi.org/10.1093/jicru/ndw042.
Grover S, Harkenrider MM, Cho LP, Erickson B, Small C, Small W Jr., et al.
Image guided cervical brachytherapy: 2014 survey of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;94:598-604.
Prabhakar R. Dose volume uniformity index: A simple tool for treatment plan evaluation in brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2010;2:71-5.
Mosalaei A, Mohammadianpanah M, Omidvari S, Ahmadloo N. High-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of uterine cervix: Twenty-year experience with cobalt after-loading system. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:1101-5.
Nguyen F, Rubino C, Guerin S, Diallo I, Samand A, Hawkins M, et al.
Risk of a second malignant neoplasm after cancer in childhood treated with radiotherapy: Correlation with the integral dose restricted to the irradiated fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:908-15.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]