IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0335405.html

Dosimetric divergence in ICBT vs. IC/ISBT configurations: Comparative analysis of three optimization algorithms for cervical cancer brachytherapy

Author

Listed:
  • Jihong Chen
  • Jiabiao Hong
  • Kaiqiang Chen
  • Xiuchun Zhang
  • Guohua Wang
  • Penggang Bai

Abstract

Objective: To compare dosimetric differences among graphical-based manual planning (MA), simulated annealing inverse optimization (IPSA), and hybrid inverse optimization (HIPO) for cervical cancer in both intra-cavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) and interstitial brachytherapy combined with ICBT (IC/ISBT) settings, providing evidence for clinical optimization method selection. Methods: This study consisted of 60 cervical cancer patients undergoing CT-guided three-dimensional brachytherapy, including 30 ICBT patients and 30 IC/ISBT patients. Plans were generated using MA, IPSA, and HIPO. The dosimetric parameters for the high-risk clinical target volume (HRCTV) including D100%, V150%, V200%, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) were compared. Meanwhile, the dosimetric parameters D1cc, D2cc for the bladder, rectum, sigmoid, and total treatment time were evaluated. Results: Compared with MA, both IPSA and HIPO delivered lower doses to organs at risk (OARs). The total treatment time was significantly shorter for HIPO compared to IPSA and MA (P 0.05), while the CI was significantly better for HIPO (P

Suggested Citation

  • Jihong Chen & Jiabiao Hong & Kaiqiang Chen & Xiuchun Zhang & Guohua Wang & Penggang Bai, 2025. "Dosimetric divergence in ICBT vs. IC/ISBT configurations: Comparative analysis of three optimization algorithms for cervical cancer brachytherapy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0335405
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0335405
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0335405&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0335405?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0335405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.