Next Article in Journal
The Evaluation of the Suitability, Quality, and Readability of Publicly Available Online Resources for the Self-Management of Fear of Cancer Recurrence
Previous Article in Journal
Resection of a Large Growing Mediastinal Germ Cell Tumor Using a Multidisciplinary Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Current Oncology
Volume 31
Issue 1
10.3390/curroncol31010004
curroncol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

High-Dose-Rate Three-Dimensional Image-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy (3D IGABT) for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC): A Narrative Review on Imaging Modality and Clinical Evidence

by
Kaiyue Wang
,
Junjie Wang
and
Ping Jiang
*
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31(1), 50-65; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31010004
Submission received: 22 November 2023 / Revised: 16 December 2023 / Accepted: 18 December 2023 / Published: 21 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Gynecologic Oncology)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Brachytherapy (BT) is a critical component of radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), and it has rapidly developed in recent decades. Since the advent of three-dimensional image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (3D-IGABT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as the primary modality for image guidance. Meanwhile, other imaging modalities, such as computed tomography, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, ultrasound, and their combinations have also been widely studied. Materials and methods: We reviewed studies on different imaging modalities utilized for target delineation and planning. Emerging techniques in IGABT like real-time image guidance and 3D printing were also included. We summarized research on their feasibility and concentrated on their clinical outcomes. Results: MRI-guided BT was the gold standard, and CT-guided BT was the most widely applied. Other modalities have shown feasibility and promising efficacy in dosimetry studies and preliminary outcomes. The longer-term clinical outcomes associated with these approaches require further elucidation. Conclusions: As 3D-IGABT was validated by promising clinical outcomes, the future of BT for LACC is expected to progress toward the refinement of more effective image-guided procedures. Moreover, achieving operational consensus and driving technological advancements to mitigate the inherent limitations associated with different imaging modes remain essential.

1. Introduction

Cervical cancer is the most frequent gynecological cancer worldwide, resulting in more than 340,000 deaths in 2020 [1]. Locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is specifically characterized by the inclusion of FIGO 2018 stages IB3 to IVA, accounting for more than 70% of newly diagnosed patients. The standard treatment choice for patients with LACC is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), consisting of intracavity brachytherapy (ICBT) or interstitial brachytherapy (ISBT) following external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). [2] Of note, brachytherapy (BT) is regarded as an irreplaceable radiotherapy to improve local control (LC) and overall survival (OS), which is characterized by steep dose gradients to enable a high dose boost while protecting organs at risk (OARs) [3].
Historically, two-dimensional (2D) orthogonal X-ray images have been used to define applicators and uterine locations. Point A was prescribed as a surrogate for tumor dose to achieve a pear-shaped isodose distribution [4,5]. Nonetheless, point-dose-based 2D BT inadequately represents the actual tumor dosage and OARs’ exposure [6,7], and it lacks the capacity to be adjusted in accordance with varying tumor sizes and locations [8]. Image-guided technology has enabled oncologists to visualize and contour the tumor (as well as normal tissues) on volumetric imaging, and optimize the dosimetry. The transition from a 2D Point A-based prescription to a three-dimensional (3D) volume-based dose prescription has been substantiated by existing evidence to confer advantages in terms of both survival rates and mitigation of toxicities [3,9,10,11]. Imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), 18F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET), and their combinations have also been widely studied. Apart from postimplant simulation images for contouring and planning, real-time imaging approaches are also used in ISBT to guide appropriate implants of the applicators and avoid repeated adjustments or suboptimal dose coverage.
This review aims to comprehensively overview advancements in the practice of modern 3D image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (3D IGABT), revealing the state-of-the-art landscape across the entire BT workflow, guided by diverse imaging techniques that are utilized for target delineation, planning, and real-time applicator guidance. We summarize research on their feasibility and clinical outcomes and provide perspectives on trends in 3D IGABT development.

2. MRI-Guided BT: The Gold Standard

2.1. MRI-Guided Contouring and Planning

As 3D-IGABT brachytherapy has become the mainstream treatment modality, MRI is the gold standard for IGABT due to its superior soft tissue contrast and ability to define parametrial and normal organ infiltrations [12,13,14]. Apart from BT, MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), referring to MRI devices integrated with linear accelerators, so called “MR-linac”, is also currently under investigation in cancer EBRT [15,16]. To promote MRI-guided brachytherapy for gynecological tumors and achieve a common communication standard, the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie (GEC) and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) (GEC-ESTRO) gynecological (GYN) Working Group was established in 2000, and published a series of guidelines to define the concepts and terminology of the definition of the target volume, OARs, and dose–volume reporting [10,17]. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 89 guidelines [18] further proposed adaptive brachytherapy, requiring adjustment of the target volume and dose according to the changes in tumor shrinkage. Adaption of the time dimension regarding different patterns of treatment response is also referred to as 4D-IGABT [19]. For normal tissues, GEC-ESTRO guidelines [13] and the ICRU89 report [18] recommend delineating the outer walls of the OARs and reporting the minimum dose in the most exposed volume, such as D0.1cc and D2cc. Meanwhile, EMBRACE serial studies launched and reported large-scale survival outcomes and morbidity patterns of MRI-based IGABT. These data provided necessary high-level evidence for dose prescriptions and predictors of local control [3,20]. For tumor target volume and OARs, dose–volume parameters and dose–effect relationships are further clarified. Risk factors and dose–effect relationships have opened up opportunities for tailored dose prescriptions, and further studies are expected to investigate dose escalation and de-escalation, as shown in Figure 1 [21].
Curroncol 31 00004 g001
Figure 1. Milestones in brachytherapy for cervical cancer. A schematic timeline showing publications of note, including MRI-guided and CT-guided brachytherapy, which are the two most important imaging modalities [22,23].
Figure 1. Milestones in brachytherapy for cervical cancer. A schematic timeline showing publications of note, including MRI-guided and CT-guided brachytherapy, which are the two most important imaging modalities [22,23].
Curroncol 31 00004 g001

2.2. Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors

Due to the excellent visualization, the utilization of MRI guidance has demonstrated a substantial capacity to enhance tumor dose precision while simultaneously minimizing radiation exposure to OARs. Moreover, it has exhibited remarkable efficacy in terms of LC and survival outcomes [8]. The RetroEMBRACE study and several experiences from single-institution studies reported a satisfactory LC of 85–95% [3,24,25]. Subsequently, GEC-ESTRO published EMBRACE-I [20], a large-scale multicenter clinical study, which confirmed the superiority of MRI-guided BT in terms of efficacy and side effects. The 5-year LC reached 92% (92% CI 90–93%), the 5-year OS was 74% (72–77%), and the incidence of ≥G3 side effects was 14.6%.
From the analysis of clinical data, both tumor parameters and treatment factors were found to be associated with clinical outcomes. The RetroEMBRACE study findings indicated that factors such as tumor histology, CTVHR D90 (the dose delivered to the high-risk clinical target volume), CTVHR volume, and the overall treatment time (OTT) exerted a discernible influence on LC [26]. An analysis of the EMBRACE I study revealed that several factors played a significant role in LC. These factors included histology, CTVHR D90, tumor size, OTT, the presence of tumor necrosis on MRI at diagnosis, and infiltration into the uterine corpus and mesorectal region [21]. The presence of tumor necrosis on MRI at the time of diagnosis, indicative of local hypoxia, along with other factors, such as the residual gross tumor volume (GTVres) during BT and the volume of the CTVHR, as well as the degree of tumor shrinkage during concurrent chemoradiotherapy, all hold significance in reflecting the tumor’s radiosensitivity and its potential impact on prognosis. Accordingly, Schernberg et al. [27] proposed employing a 90% reduction in GTV volume as a threshold for assessment. Ke et al. [28] demonstrated that a volume of > 8.37 cm3 GTVres at the initial BT session (GTVres BT1) was associated with poor 2-year LC (84.0% vs. 98.5%, p = 0.025) and OS (52.0% vs. 89.7%, p < 0.01).

3. CT-Guided BT: The Most Common Procedure

Although MRI is optimal for 3D-IGABT planning in LACC, the routine utilization of MRI is not always readily accessible in some healthcare institutions due to logistical challenges and time-consuming image acquisition processes [29]. Furthermore, MRI can be susceptible to distortions and diminished image quality arising from organ movements during the procedure [30]. In contrast, CT presents promising prospects for development due to its excellent compatibility with BT applicators. Additionally, CT scans provide electronic voxel information, facilitating optimization in treatment planning. Several studies have shown that CT is the most commonly used imaging modality in clinical practice, and it is worthy of further exploration [31,32].

3.1. CT-Guided Contouring and Planning

Several studies have conducted comparative assessments of dimensions between delineations based on CT and MRI, demonstrating the practicality of contouring target volumes and OARs using CT scans. With the aid of diagnostic MRI without applicators in situ, CTVHR can be contoured by CT. It is generally accepted that CT-based tumor contours could significantly overestimate tumor width [33], and some have also concluded that CT could also underestimate tumor heights [34,35,36]. As a result, CT may overestimate tumor volumes. Multiple studies have demonstrated that due to the overestimation of tumor volume by CT, the volume treated with a prescribed dose or higher (V100) is larger, which resulted in a lower CTVHR D90 [34,36]. For the delineation of OARs, studies have mainly demonstrated that CT and MRI are comparable [34].
CT showed a poorer performance in the visualization of tumor and parametrial invasion than MRI [37]. Swanick et al. [38] found that agreement on CTVHR spatial contours between CT and MRI was poor in patients with parametrial invasion >5 cm at the time of diagnosis, and with a high body mass index (BMI); thus, MRI guidance was recommended for such cases. Larger tumors and complex applicators were more likely to benefit from MRI [23]. In addition to the differences in tumor dimensions, different positions may also occur between CT- and MRI-based contours. The actual target volume may be located in a high-dose area or a dose-drop area, which will lead to the dose parameters guided by CT not truly representing the dose delivered to the actual volume [39]. This may explain the worse survival outcomes of CT-guided than MRI-guided therapy, without a significant difference in CTVHR dose–volume parameters [40].
Based on the above findings, it is advisable to combine physical examination and pre-BT MRI to improve CT-guided delineations [20,34]. Furthermore, enhanced CT and/or ultrasound may also reduce the variations in and dose impacts of target delineation [41,42]. Several consensuses have been issued for CT-guided target delineation [43,44,45]. In 2021, the IBS-GEC ESTRO-ABS recommendation [45] defined CT-based CTVHR under four different radiological environments and four different remission categories. CT or MR imaging at diagnosis, clinical examination and documentation, and CT imaging at BT with the applicator in situ were the minimum requirements for CT-based contours. In situations where only CT is available, two thirds of the uterine cavity is a surrogate for CTVHR height to include most of the potential cranial tumor extension for advanced disease [45,46]. These guidelines are valuable for improving the consistency and quality of CT-guided BT, especially in resource-constrained settings. Nevertheless, further validation is required to assess their reproducibility and feasibility.

3.2. Clinical Outcomes

A great number of studies have published clinical results of CT-based BT (Table 1). Cho et al. [47] retrospectively analyzed 128 patients with FIGO stage I-II disease treated with IC. The overall LC, progression-free survival (PFS), and OS were 96%, 88%, and 88% at 2 years, respectively, and no isolated pelvic local recurrence was observed. They suggested that CT-based therapy may be considered for stage I and II cervical cancer or near-complete response after undergoing CCRT if MRI cannot be routinely used. Chan et al. [48] reported the results of follow-up over 4 years, with 25.9% receiving at least one IS, reporting 5-year LC 90.7%, DFS 80.0% and OS 87.2%. This was consistent with the previously mentioned target volume study, wherein the median volume of the CTVHR delineated under CT guidance was larger compared with similar studies based on MRI, which led to a lower CTVHR D90. There are currently few data to directly compare CT- and MRI-guided planning strategies. D’Cunha et al. [49] found that CTVHR D90 and OARs’ D2cc showed consistency between MRI- and CT-based BT. In the MRI group, 5-year OS was improved compared to the CT group (68.7% vs. 63.5%), as well as 5-year PFS (58.8% vs. 51.5%). However, upon univariate analysis these improvements were not significant. In another single-institutional study, no statistically significant differences were observed in CTVHR EQD2 (equivalent dose in 2Gy/f) and OARs’ D2cc. But MR-guided ISBT was associated with better OS than CT-guided ISBT. (2y OS: 84% and 56% p = 0.036) [40]. Large-scale studies on patients with large volumes or receiving ISBT may support improved clinical outcomes with MRI.
Table 1. Major studies that published clinical outcomes 3D image guidance modalities other than MRI in BT of LACC.
Table 1. Major studies that published clinical outcomes 3D image guidance modalities other than MRI in BT of LACC.
 Imaging Modality for PlanningIC or IC/ISNumber of PatientsFIGO StageMedian Follow-Up (m) Local Control (%)Disease-Free Survival (%)Overall Survival (%)Toxicity (%)
3 y5 y3 y5 y3 y5 yAny≥G3
Mesko et al. [50] 2015CTIS31IB–IVB1990 * 55 * 61 *   
Cho et al. [47] 2016CTIC128IA–IIB3096 * 88 *,a 88 *  16 c, 2 d
Ohno et al. [51] 2017CTIC, IC/
IS (17.5%)		80I–IV60 94 90 b 86 3.8 (GI) d
3.8 (GU) d
Kawashima et al. [52] 2019CTIC84IB–IVA3689 81 a 94 28.8 (GI)5 (GI)
Chan et al. [48] 2022CTIC, IC/
IS (25.9%)		135IB–IVA54 90.7 65.2 87.211.99.7
Xiu et al. [53] 2022CTIC, IC/
IS (31.3%)		211IB2–IIIB69 89 67 7825.1(GI)
1.9 (GU)		12.3 (GI)
Uezono et al. [54] 2022CTIC, IC/
IS (27%)		171IB–IV3386   75  5, 4 c
6 (GI) d,
2.9 (GU) d
Beriwal et al. [22] 2011F1 MRI + serial CTIC44IB–IIIB888 *   86 *  0
Choong et al. [55] 2015F1 HYBRID + serial CTIC49IB–IVA4792.6 78.8 a 77.7  12
Van Dyk et al. [56] 2016single MR + serial USIC191II–VB608686  7563 6
Tharavichitkul et al. [57] 2018TAUSIC92IB–III4185.9 76.1 89.1   
Tharavichitkul et al. [58] 2022CT (50.5%)
TAUS (49.5%)		IC, IC/
IS (9.2%)		295I–IV48 89.5 # 74.9 a,# 69.1 # 1.7 (≥G2 GU) 4.1 (≥G2 GI)
Kim et al. [59] 2022PET/CTIC151I–IV57 89.2 64.1 76 8.6 c, 7.3 d
* 2-year; # 4-year. a Progression-free survival, b Pelvic progression-free survival. c Acute toxicity, d Late toxicity. IC = Intracavitary; IS = Interstitial; TAUS = Transabdominal ultrasound; GI = gastrointestinal; GU = genitourinary.

4. CT/MRI-Guided BT: Prominent Combination

Given the ongoing challenges in accurately defining target volumes using CT scanning alone, numerous medical institutions have attempted to combine CT and MRI modalities in guiding BT procedures. This integration aims to leverage the practicality of CT scans while harnessing the superior precision of MRI.
In the previously proposed method by Beriwal et al. [22], MRI images obtained before or at the first fraction (F1) of BT served as reference images for target delineation and dose optimization, without the need for image fusion [22]. (Table 2). While assessment of dose analysis and early clinical outcomes supported the feasibility of this approach, it placed a significant reliance on the expertise of the medical personnel involved. The introduction of image fusion techniques proved advantageous in achieving a more precise definition of the target volume. Various CT/MRI fusion-based methods have been employed (Table 2).
Table 2. Characterizations of different CT/MRI combined BT approaches.
Table 2. Characterizations of different CT/MRI combined BT approaches.
Publication, YearInstitutionCT/MRI CombinationCharacterization of WorkflowAdvantages and/or Limitations
Beriwal et al. [22] 2011Pittsburgh Cancer Institutenon-image fusion
  • MRI image at F1 BT as a reference
  • First report of a combined approach
  • Highly dependent on the observers’ expertise
Nesvacil et al. [23] 2013Vienna groupMRI at F1
  • CTVHR delineated on MRI at F1 BT
  • For subsequent fractions: MRI/CT fusion through applicator-based registration.
  • Requiring consistency in applicators
  • Large deviations in IS and large tumors
  • Compatible facilities are still necessary
Trifiletti et al. [60] 2015Virginia Universityasynchronous MRI image
  • A Smit sleeve is sutured and fixed to the external Os of the cervix, and then the applicator is inserted.
  • CT images and CT-based planning obtained for F1 BT.
  • After F1 treatment, the applicator and packing gauze are removed while the Smit sleeve remains in place. Then, MRI images are obtained, and GTV volume is defined on MRI images.
  • For subsequent fractions: MRI/CT fusion uses rigid registration based on a Smit sleeve.
  • Accessible for centers without MRI-compatible applicators
  • Retaining the logistical advantages of a CT-based workflow (familiarity, speed, and planning)
  • Additional clinical visits and sutures
Choong et al. [55] 2015St James’s UniversityF1 hybrid and F2-3 CT only
  • MRI and CT images with applications in situ at F1. A standard treatment plan is conducted (7 Gy prescribed to Point A)
  • Post-plan created based on hybrid images
  • CTVHR transferred to F2-3 CT images using rigid registration based on applicators
  • F1 planning is not optimized
  • Not applicable for bulky disease or IS
One of the most commonly utilized techniques was the approach proposed by the Vienna group, which employed MRI only for the first time of application [22]. The findings indicated that for small tumors, the MRI/CT plan exhibited a high degree of comparability with the MRI plan. Nevertheless, some limitations are inevitable. First, it requires consistency in both the model and positioning of the applicator during each fraction. Second, when using interstitial needles or in large tumors, the anatomical relationship changes greatly, resulting in large deviations in planning. Third, at least one MRI scan is needed, which is still not applicable in centers lacking MRI-compatible facilities.
Trifiletti et al. [60] applied the method of asynchronous MRI image fusion, in which MRI images without applicators in situ are fused to CT images based on a Smit sleeve. This approach could incorporate MRI-based target definition while retaining the advantages of a CT-based workflow. Dose analysis [61] showed that MRI fusion allowed the dose distribution to be adjusted according to individual anatomical characteristics, thus reducing excessive or insufficient coverage. Another study conducted by Choong et al. [55] obtained both MRI and CT with applicators in situ at F1, and subsequently registered these images in the follow-up fraction CT images, yielding promising results. When comparing this hybrid approach (n = 49) with the three-fraction MRI-guided approach (n = 27), the CTVHR D90 and rectum/small bowel D2cc were similar. As for clinical outcomes at 3 years, the local control hybrid group showed a comparable LC (92.6% and 92.2%, p > 0.05) and better OS (77.7% vs. 69.6%, p < 0.05) than the MRI group. But selection bias remained in this study, and a prospective study will be required.
In summary, the combined CT/MRI-guided BT approach is considered a cost-effective and highly accessible option, holding promise for the expansion of IGABT in LACC. A few clinical outcomes have been reported to support the combined modes. (Table 1) Nevertheless, certain limitations persist in the nature of this combined approach. Notably, the inability to observe tumor shrinkage throughout the treatment course using a single MRI underscores the importance of the physician’s comprehensive consideration of each patient’s clinical information.

5. PET-Guided BT: On the Way

FDG-PET is a functional imaging modality that is sensitive to distant metastasis and nodal diseases, and it has been used for staging the diagnosis of tumors and guiding radiotherapy intensity [62,63,64]. The investigation of PET-guided BT for cervical cancer aims to enhance the assessment of tumor regression following external beam irradiation and compensate for the suboptimal imaging quality of CT [65]. Lin et al. [66] revealed that PET-optimized plans had better dose coverage on the GTV than 2D plans based on point A, without increasing doses to rectal and bladder reference points. In this study, GTV was defined as the range of FDG-avid uptake on PET scans, identified by a 40% peak tumor intensity based on an early study [67]. The application of sequential PET could also help to better evaluate the response of the tumor during external radiation, and contribute to adaptive radiotherapy [68].
Nam et al. [65] first proposed the concept and procedural details of FDG-PET/CT-guided BT for cervical cancer. In this approach, target volumes were meticulously delineated based on the fusion of PET and CT images. GTV was identified as the enhancing area by adjusting the window and level to a reasonable value, guided by visual assessment in consultation with a nuclear medicine physician. CTV encompassed a 1 cm expansion towards the soft tissue mass boundaries of the uterus, cervix, and vagina and microscopic residual disease, which was based on baseline MRI and pelvic examination upon IGBT planning. PET-guided BT indicated a higher D90 of CTV than point A prescriptions, and long-term outcomes of a 5-year LC rate of 89% in comparison to other MRI-guided BTs [59]. Nonetheless, numerous challenges persist, including the absence of a definitive threshold for standardized uptake values (SUVs), substantial uncertainties at both intra- and inter-observer levels, and the necessity for further consensus in this field. Moreover, the burdensome procedure of radiation protection, scan intervals, and the need for continuous bladder irrigation may be barriers to its broader utilization.
Furthermore, a great number of studies have also concentrated on the predictive value of PET, and found that pretreatment values or relative changes in PET parameters [69], such as SUVmax and metabolic tumor volume (MTV), were associated with treatment responses and long-term outcomes [70]. Lucia et al. found that the high-uptake volume on baseline PET/CT was correlated with the site of recurrence, and suboptimal dosage coverage of the area could be associated with a higher risk of recurrence [71,72]. The investigation of the dose–effect relationship within these PET-based biological target volumes remains a crucial area of research. It holds the potential to delineate novel target volumes and dose prescriptions that may enhance treatment precision and efficacy.

6. US-Guided BT: Promising and Low-Cost

The exploration of US-guided BT is gaining prominence as an alternative approach in the treatment of cervical cancer. This is primarily attributed to its accessibility and invaluable real-time feedback. The assessment can be performed via transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS).
There is promising feasibility in employing US for contouring and optimizing treatment planning, primarily due to its outstanding soft-tissue resolution. The workflow can be guided solely by US or in conjunction with other imaging modalities (Table 3).
Table 3. Characterizations of different US-guided BT planning approaches.
Table 3. Characterizations of different US-guided BT planning approaches.
Publication, YearInstitutionUS-Guided BT PlanningCharacterization of WorkflowPerspectives
Nesvacil et al. [73] 2016Vienna groupTRUS/CT
  • Continuous 3D image acquisition by TRUS performed before (TRUSpreBT) and after insertion (TRUSBT) of the applicator.
  • Contouring CTVHR on reconstructed transversal planes of TRUSBT with TRUSpreBT also considered.
  • TRUS/CT image fusion by rigid registration.
  • CTVHR transferred to CT and OARs delineated directly on CT.
  • High agreement with MRI
  • Limited FOV and acoustic shadowing
  • Still requires technical improvements for precise applicator reconstruction
Van Dyk et al. [74] 2015Peter MacCallum Cancer Centresingle MR + serial TAUS
  • TAUS images obtained at F1; cervical and uterine widths measured on the transverse images.
  • Only longitudinal images are imported to the TPS system to generate a US plan.
  • MRI scanned with the applicator in situ after the treatment; 3D distribution of the US planning dose calculated on the MRI used as a guide for the optimization of the second ultrasound plan.
  • For the subsequent fraction: if the position and measurements of the cervix and uterus are near to the previous fraction, a new plan can be implemented.
  • US used for both planning and verification of placement and dose coverage
  • Not possible to evaluate volumetric dose of OARS
Tharavichitkul et al. [75] 2015Chiang Mai UniversityTAUS/orthogonal radiographs
  • TAUS-guided tandem placement; relationship between tandem and the uterus were evaluated.
  • Eight cervical points were defined by measuring distances from tandem to the uterine wall by TAUS in sagittal view and then marked on the orthogonal images.
  • Dose optimization guided by Point A, ICRU reference points and eight cervical points.
  • US used for both planning and placement
  • Not allowing full volumetric analysis of dose coverage
  • Unable to evaluate the residual tumor or the vaginal extension
  • Cannot accumulate doses to sigmoid colon and vagina
Schmid et al. [73,76] found that TRUS exhibited a strong agreement with MRI when assessing the CTVHR width, accompanied by a slight underestimation of CTVHR thickness. This underscores its potential for accurately depicting the treatment target. The Vienna group, recognizing the complementary benefits of TRUS and CT, recommended the fusion of TRUS and CT images while the applicator was in place. This approach was found to mitigate the overestimation of CTVHR volume of CT alone, and yielded planning outcomes closely associated with MRI-based planning [77]. In follow-up studies, they developed an optical tracking device as a reference structure to overcome limitations in anterior and cranial borders of CTVHR due to the limited probe length and its acoustic shadowing [78]. Swamidas et al. [41] also reported no statistically significant differences in CTVHR and OARs between TRUS/CT- and MRI-based planning in 21 patients who received IC/IS or IC. However, the dosimetric and clinical outcome impacts of TRUS-guided BT in a large sample remain to be reported.
TAUS is also an option for BT planning. With a larger field of view (FOV) than TRUS, TAUS can clearly display the entire applicator and has a high consistency with MRI in defining CTV [79]. Van Dyk et al. [80] first reported dosimetric agreement between TAUS-based planning and 2D MRI imaging in doses delivered to target volume, the rectal point, and vaginal mucosa. They attempted to use single MRI combined with serial TAUS [74]. In this procedure, US was utilized to both generate a plan and to verify the placement and dose coverage. This practice has reported very low rates of ≥3 and adverse events, demonstrating the safety of the procedure, and further attempts will be made to apply hybrid applicators to improve target coverage [56]. Tharavichitkul et al. [58,75] reported their experiences and excellent outcomes of dose planning using TAUS and orthogonal radiographs. Eight cervical points were defined by TAUS and marked on the orthogonal images to serve as reference points to guide the dose optimization. In their report of 295 patients over ten years who underwent CT- or TAUS-guided BT, there were no significant differences between the two modalities in terms of local control and survival [58].
Briefly, US is an effective and portable method for institutions and regions with limited access to serial MRI guidance. The exceptional soft tissue resolution of US enables physicians to utilize it as a standalone tool or in conjunction with CT or MRI for treatment planning and generation. However, it is imperative for the medical community to establish operational consensus and drive technological advancements to address the inherent limitations associated with operator dependence, restricted field of view, and acoustic shadowing.

7. Emerging Techniques in Image Guidance

7.1. US-Guided Applicator Implantation

US was widely utilized to guide tandem implants to avoid uterine perforation and improve the accuracy of placement. The conventional blind insertion of tandems carried a heightened risk of perforation, particularly among elderly patients with varying cervical anatomical characteristics, stenosis of the cervical Os, and increased extent of disease [81]. Suboptimal placement of applicators could also negatively affect local control and survival [82]. A meta-analysis that included 12 studies with 1757 inserts and a phase III randomized trial demonstrated that US guidance could result in an almost 10-fold reduction in the risk of perforation per insertion [83,84]. Experiences have also been documented for patients encountering challenges in applicator placement [85,86]. The utilization of intraoperative ultrasound serves as a preventive measure against inadvertent insertion into false passages in a necrotic or fibrotic cervix or within the myometrium. It facilitates cervical manipulation and the selection of an appropriate tandem curvature [87]. In light of the aforementioned considerations, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recommended real-time TAUS or TRUS guidance as the gold standard to assist tandem insertion to prevent perforation [88]. In practice, it is crucial to obtain simultaneous US visualization of the cervix and the tandem tip while it is inserted [89].
In recent studies, the feasibility of real-time US guidance of interstitial needles has been explored to adjust the direction and depth of needle insertion. Knoth et al. [90] studied the visualization of needles in TRUS, and found that most of the interstitial needles were visible. Insertion directions significantly affected visualization. Needles aligned parallel to the uterine axis, typically located within the cervix and/or tumor, demonstrated superior signal contrast and enhanced visibility compared with needles positioned within the parametrial space. Although the needle margins were blurred, quantitative analysis showed a high correlation between TRUS and MRI, with 89% within 3 mm. Lin et al. [91] also showed that TRUS had a high consistency with MRI in needle positioning. Rodgers et al. [92] invented a system which could reconstruct the 2D frames into a 3D TRUS image in real-time, and found 79% of tips were identifiable in vivo. Shadowing artifacts were the main obscuration.
Furthermore, it is anticipated that active tracking devices, such as electromagnetic tracking (EMT), can be integrated with US to enable real-time guidance and facilitate the digitalization of interstitial needles with greater accuracy and precision. Yang et al. [93] developed an intraoperative guidance system in which electromagnetic sensors attached to the needles enabled tracking needle tips and localizing the needle trajectories in space. Another sensor attached to the ultrasound probe registered 2D ultrasound with preoperative MRI. The probe calibration algorithm was used to obtain the relative coordinates of the current ultrasound image on the spatial position. The system provided a robust solution to realize the combination of high-precision visualization and real-time image guidance. The team then applied the procedure in a CT-based context and also observed high accuracy [94].

7.2. MRI-Guided Applicator Implantation

MRI is also under investigation for intraoperative interstitial implantation guidance to achieve more accurate positioning. According to how the interstitial catheters are visible in MRI, the approaches are separated into passive and active tracking [95]. The former is achieved depending on different contrasts between needles and surrounding tissues, while the latter relies on modern specific sensors to send signals of location and orientation. Viswanathan et al. [96] first reported a prospective clinical trial of MRI passive tracking in gynecologic ISBT. As the needle was inserted, real-time images were viewed with either fast T2 sagittal or axial images displayed on the MR screens above the operating area. The results demonstrated MRI-guided insertion contributed to proper placement and low morbidity. In Brigham and Women’s Hospital, an active MR tracking (MRTR) system was designed and evaluated [97,98]. The system could provide accurate catheter tip localization and catheter digitization by means of a stylet with microcoils. Moreover, the active tracking system presented a faster tracking update speed and the possibility of eliminating the need for a manual reconstruction process. As of now, the clinical assessment of MRI-guided real-time guidance is urgently lacking. Integration into the current workflow must be accompanied by sufficient evidence and standardized safety tests with great forethought.

7.3. 3D Printing Personalized Applicators and Implant Templates

Traditional freehand needle placement requires more technical skills than ICBT and relies heavily on experienced operators. To obtain higher dose coverage, it is necessary to repeatedly adjust the insertion angles and depths according to the post-implantation CT/MRI scanning, which may increase the risk of patient injuries. In addition, securing needles is difficult during patient transduction, leading to uncertainty in dosimetry. These disadvantages limit the use of ISBT. First proposed in the 1980s, 3D printing is a technology that creates entities by printing layer by layer. With the help of 3D-printing technology, individualized applicators and interstitial implant templates of specific shapes can be prepared according to the individual anatomical structure to help optimize the needle path, achieve accurate dose coverage, and improve security and efficiency [99,100]. Jiang et al. [101] summarized the advantages of the 3D template as follows: it can decrease setup and mobilization errors, and minimize differences between therapists. Moreover, MRI can be used in preplanning for better lesion definition and treatment quality control.
Lindegaard et al. [102] developed a 3D-printed tandem needle template (3DP TNT) in place of the ring channel of the T&R applicator. The template had eight guiding holes to provide precise and repeatable guidance for needles. The device helps treat nulliparous or elderly patients with vaginal stenosis who cannot tolerate the ring mold applicator, and may reduce vaginal mucosal complications. Recently, they published the long-term outcomes of routine clinical work using 3DP TNT, and implemented EMBRACE II planning aims and DVH constraints in 101 patients [103]. The study showed 3DP TNT was able to achieve an excellent mean CTVHR D90 of 93.4 Gy, without exceeding EMBRACE II OAR dose constraints in infiltrative tumors and difficult anatomical conditions. Despite a high proportion of stage III/IV disease and a high tumor load, the 3-year LC and OS values were 85% and 63%, and ≥G3 side effects’ incidence was in line with retroEMBRACE and EMBRACE I. Marar et al. [104] designed a tandem anchored radially guiding interstitial template (TARGIT), which was attached to the tandem in place of a standard flange to guide four to six interstitial needles. The results demonstrated that compared with freehand implantation, TARGIT significantly improved the CTVHR V100% of tumors, especially in large tumors, and only slightly increased the operation time (an average of 6 min). Serban et al. [105] used a 3D-printed vaginal IC applicator as a template to guide parallel and oblique needles and achieved an HR CTV D90 of 92.5 Gy, 70% of which reached the hard dose limit of EMBRACE II. However, reports of clinical outcomes from 3D printing applicators are still scarce, and high-quality evidence is still needed to confirm the effectiveness of this application. Future research will also concentrate on the automatic generation of virtual stitches, automatic inverse optimization planning, and generation of personalized applicators [106,107]. User-friendly software should also be developed to avoid problems during data conversion. In addition, 3D printing-related norms and standards will also be formulated.

8. Conclusions

The transition to 3D-IGABT has been validated to improve survival outcomes while simultaneously reducing treatment-related toxicities. Among the available imaging modalities for IGABT, MRI stands out as the optimal option for contouring and planning due to its superior ability to visualize both tumor and normal tissues. Nevertheless, there is noticeable promise in exploring alternative imaging modalities, such as CT, PET, US, and their combinations. CT is the most wildly applied modality especially in developing countries, and it is considered to be combined with MRI or US to improve its contouring precision. There are also several preclinical and early-phase studies reporting PET- and US-guided BT. However, it is imperative that these alternatives undergo rigorous clinical evaluation to assess their efficacy. Emerging techniques for accurate tandem or interstitial needle guidance mainly include real-time guidance devices and 3D-printing applicators and implant templates. Real-time US guidance is recommended as the gold standard to assist tandem insertion. Other techniques, like real-time MRI-guidance and 3D-printing applicators and templates are under investigation. These emerging techniques will contribute to IGABT safety and tumor dose escalation. The future of BT for LACC is expected to progress towards personalized dose prescriptions and the refinement of more effective image-guided procedures. Moreover, achieving operational consensus among medical practitioners and driving technological advancements to mitigate the inherent limitations associated with different imaging modes remain essential.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.J. and J.W.; methodology, K.W. and P.J.; resources, K.W. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, K.W.; writing—review and editing, P.J. and J.W.; visualization, K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Green, J.A.; Kirwan, J.M.; Tierney, J.F.; Symonds, P.; Fresco, L.; Collingwood, M.; Williams, C.J. Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2001, 358, 781–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sturdza, A.; Potter, R.; Fokdal, L.U.; Haie-Meder, C.; Tan, L.T.; Mazeron, R.; Petric, P.; Segedin, B.; Jurgenliemk-Schulz, I.M.; Nomden, C.; et al. Image guided brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: Improved pelvic control and survival in RetroEMBRACE, a multicenter cohort study. Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 120, 428–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Potish, R.; Gerbi, B.; Engler, G. Dose Prescription, Dose Specification, and Applicator Geometry in Intracavitary Therapy; Medical Physics Publishing: Madison, WI, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bethesda, M. ICRU report 38. Dose and volume specification for reporting intracavitary therapy in gynecology. Int. Comm. Radiat. Units Meas. 1985, 38, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  6. Georgescu, M.; Tanase, A.; Dumitrache, M.; Ileanu, B.; Anghel, R. Dosimetric evaluation study on conventional and 3D conformal brachytherapy treatment of cervix cancer. Rom. Rep. Phys. 2017, 69, 608. [Google Scholar]
  7. Georgescu, M.; Moldoveanu, V.; Ileanu, B.; Anghel, R. Dosimetric influence of uterus position in cervix cancer high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Rom. J. Phys. 2016, 61, 1557–1566. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tanderup, K.; Nielsen, S.K.; Nyvang, G.B.; Pedersen, E.M.; Rohl, L.; Aagaard, T.; Fokdal, L.; Lindegaard, J.C. From point A to the sculpted pear: MR image guidance significantly improves tumour dose and sparing of organs at risk in brachytherapy of cervical cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2010, 94, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fokdal, L.; Sturdza, A.; Mazeron, R.; Haie-Meder, C.; Tan, L.T.; Gillham, C.; Segedin, B.; Jurgenliemk-Schultz, I.; Kirisits, C.; Hoskin, P.; et al. Image guided adaptive brachytherapy with combined intracavitary and interstitial technique improves the therapeutic ratio in locally advanced cervical cancer: Analysis from the retroEMBRACE study. Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 120, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Charra-Brunaud, C.; Harter, V.; Delannes, M.; Haie-Meder, C.; Quetin, P.; Kerr, C.; Castelain, B.; Thomas, L.; Peiffert, D. Impact of 3D image-based PDR brachytherapy on outcome of patients treated for cervix carcinoma in France: Results of the French STIC prospective study. Radiother. Oncol. 2012, 103, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hande, V.; Chopra, S.; Kalra, B.; Abdel-Wahab, M.; Kannan, S.; Tanderup, K.; Grover, S.; Zubizarreta, E.; Rubio, J.A.P. Point-A vs. volume-based brachytherapy for the treatment of cervix cancer: A meta-analysis. Radiother. Oncol. 2022, 170, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nag, S. Controversies and new developments in gynecologic brachytherapy: Image-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical carcinoma. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2006, 16, 164–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Haie-Meder, C.; Potter, R.; Van Limbergen, E.; Briot, E.; De Brabandere, M.; Dimopoulos, J.; Dumas, I.; Hellebust, T.P.; Kirisits, C.; Lang, S.; 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, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Nag, S.; Cardenes, H.; Chang, S.; Das, I.J.; Erickson, B.; Ibbott, G.S.; Lowenstein, J.; Roll, J.; Thomadsen, B.; Varia, M. Proposed guidelines for image-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical carcinoma: Report from Image-Guided Brachytherapy Working Group. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2004, 60, 1160–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hall, W.A.; Paulson, E.S.; van der Heide, U.A.; Fuller, C.D.; Raaymakers, B.W.; Lagendijk, J.J.W.; Li, X.A.; Jaffray, D.A.; Dawson, L.A.; Erickson, B.; et al. The transformation of radiation oncology using real-time magnetic resonance guidance: A review. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 122, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Boldrini, L.; Piras, A.; Chiloiro, G.; Autorino, R.; Cellini, F.; Cusumano, D.; Fionda, B.; D’Aviero, A.; Campitelli, M.; Marazzi, F.; et al. Low Tesla magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: First clinical experience. Tumori 2020, 106, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Potter, R.; Haie-Meder, C.; Van Limbergen, E.; Barillot, I.; De Brabandere, M.; Dimopoulos, J.; Dumas, I.; Erickson, B.; Lang, S.; Nulens, A.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Brachytherapy for Cancer of the Cervix. J. ICRU 2013, 13, NP. [CrossRef]
  19. Pötter, R.; Kirisits, C.; Fidarova, E.F.; Dimopoulos, J.C.; Berger, D.; Tanderup, K.; Lindegaard, J.C. Present status and future of high-precision image guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervix carcinoma. Acta Oncol. 2008, 47, 1325–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pötter, R.; Tanderup, K.; Schmid, M.P.; Jürgenliemk-Schulz, I.; Haie-Meder, C.; Fokdal, L.U.; Sturdza, A.E.; Hoskin, P.; Mahantshetty, U.; Segedin, B.; et al. MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer (EMBRACE-I): A multicentre prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 538–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Potter, R.; Tanderup, K.; Kirisits, C.; de Leeuw, A.; Kirchheiner, K.; Nout, R.; Tan, L.T.; Haie-Meder, C.; Mahantshetty, U.; Segedin, B.; et al. The EMBRACE II study: The outcome and prospect of two decades of evolution within the GEC-ESTRO GYN working group and the EMBRACE studies. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 9, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Beriwal, S.; Kannan, N.; Kim, H.; Houser, C.; Mogus, R.; Sukumvanich, P.; Olawaiye, A.; Richard, S.; Kelley, J.L.; Edwards, R.P.; et al. Three-dimensional high dose rate intracavitary image-guided brachytherapy for the treatment of cervical cancer using ahybrid magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography approach: Feasibility and early results. Clin. Oncol. (R Coll. Radiol.) 2011, 23, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Nesvacil, N.; Potter, R.; Sturdza, A.; Hegazy, N.; Federico, M.; Kirisits, C. Adaptive image guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer: A combined MRI-/CT-planning technique with MRI only at first fraction. Radiother. Oncol. 2013, 107, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Derks, K.; Steenhuijsen, J.L.G.; van den Berg, H.A.; Houterman, S.; Cnossen, J.; van Haaren, P.; De Jaeger, K. Impact of brachytherapy technique (2D versus 3D) on outcome following radiotherapy of cervical cancer. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2018, 10, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Potter, R.; Georg, P.; Dimopoulos, J.C.; Grimm, M.; Berger, D.; Nesvacil, N.; Georg, D.; Schmid, M.P.; Reinthaller, A.; Sturdza, A.; et al. Clinical outcome of protocol based image (MRI) guided adaptive brachytherapy combined with 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2011, 100, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tanderup, K.; Fokdal, L.U.; Sturdza, A.; Haie-Meder, C.; Mazeron, R.; van Limbergen, E.; Jurgenliemk-Schulz, I.; Petric, P.; Hoskin, P.; Dorr, W.; et al. Effect of tumor dose, volume and overall treatment time on local control after radiochemotherapy including MRI guided brachytherapy of locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 120, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Schernberg, A.; Bockel, S.; Annede, P.; Fumagalli, I.; Escande, A.; Mignot, F.; Kissel, M.; Morice, P.; Bentivegna, E.; Gouy, S.; et al. Tumor Shrinkage During Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Patients: Prognostic Significance, and Impact for Image-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 102, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ke, T.; Wang, J.; Zhang, N.; Zhao, H.; Guo, X.; Zhao, Z.; Mao, Z.; Cheng, G. Dose-effect relationship between dose-volume parameters of residual gross tumor volume and clinical prognosis in MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: A single-center retrospective study. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2023, 199, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harkenrider, M.M.; Shea, S.M.; Wood, A.M.; Chinsky, B.; Bajaj, A.; Mysz, M.; Yacoub, J.H.; Goldberg, A.; Liotta, M.; Potkul, R.; et al. How one institution overcame the challenges to start an MRI-based brachytherapy program for cervical cancer. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2017, 9, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wills, R.; Lowe, G.; Inchley, D.; Anderson, C.; Beenstock, V.; Hoskin, P. Applicator reconstruction for HDR cervix treatment planning using images from 0.35 T open MR scanner. Radiother. Oncol. 2010, 94, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ohno, T.; Toita, T.; Tsujino, K.; Uchida, N.; Hatano, K.; Nishimura, T.; Ishikura, S. A questionnaire-based survey on 3D image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer in Japan: Advances and obstacles. J. Radiat. Res. 2015, 56, 897–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Grover, S.; Harkenrider, M.M.; Cho, L.P.; Erickson, B.; Small, C.; Small, W., Jr.; Viswanathan, A.N. Image Guided Cervical Brachytherapy: 2014 Survey of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016, 94, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, F.; Tang, Q.; Lv, G.; Zhao, F.; Jiang, X.; Zhu, X.; Li, X.; Yan, S. Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer brachytherapy: A systematic review. Brachytherapy 2017, 16, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Viswanathan, A.N.; Dimopoulos, J.; Kirisits, C.; Berger, D.; Potter, 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, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Krishnatry, R.; Patel, F.D.; Singh, P.; Sharma, S.C.; Oinam, A.S.; Shukla, A.K. CT or MRI for image-based brachytherapy in cervical cancer. JPN J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 42, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rai, B.; Patel, F.D.; Tomar, P.; Singh, O.A.; Simha, V.; Dhanireddy, B.; Sharma, S.C. A study to assess the feasibility of using CT (±diagnostic MRI) instead of MRI at brachytherapy in image guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer. J. Radiother. Pract. 2014, 13, 438–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hricak, H.; Gatsonis, C.; Coakley, F.V.; Snyder, B.; Reinhold, C.; Schwartz, L.H.; Woodward, P.J.; Pannu, H.K.; Amendola, M.; Mitchell, D.G. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation—ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology 2007, 245, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Swanick, C.W.; Castle, K.O.; Vedam, S.; Munsell, M.F.; Turner, L.M.; Rauch, G.M.; Jhingran, A.; Eifel, P.J.; Klopp, A.H. Comparison of computed tomography–and magnetic resonance imaging–based clinical target volume contours at brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016, 96, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yip, W.W.L.; Wong, J.S.Y.; Lee, V.W.Y.; Wong, F.C.S.; Tung, S.Y. Throwing the dart blind-folded: Comparison of computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer with regard to dose received by the ‘actual’ targets and organs at risk. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2017, 9, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kamran, S.C.; Manuel, M.M.; Cho, L.P.; Damato, A.L.; Schmidt, E.J.; Tempany, C.; Cormack, R.A.; Viswanathan, A.N. Comparison of outcomes for MR-guided versus CT-guided high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in women with locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 145, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Swamidas, J.; Jain, J.; Nesvacil, N.; Tanderup, K.; Kirisits, C.; Schmid, M.; Agarwal, P.; Joshi, K.; Naga, P.; Ranjan Khadanga, C.; et al. Dosimetric impact of target definition in brachytherapy for cervical cancer—Computed tomography and trans rectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 21, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mahantshetty, U.; Naga Ch, P.; Khadanga, C.R.; Gudi, S.; Chopra, S.; Gurram, L.; Jamema, S.; Ghadi, Y.; Shrivastava, S. A Prospective Comparison of Computed Tomography with Transrectal Ultrasonography Assistance and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Target-Volume Definition during Image Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancers. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 102, 1448–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Viswanathan, A.N.; Erickson, B.; Gaffney, D.K.; Beriwal, S.; Bhatia, S.K.; Lee Burnett, O., 3rd; D’Souza, D.P.; Patil, N.; Haddock, M.G.; Jhingran, A.; et al. 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, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ohno, T.; Wakatsuki, M.; Toita, T.; Kaneyasu, Y.; Yoshida, K.; Kato, S.; Ii, N.; Tokumaru, S.; Ikushima, H.; Uno, T.; 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, 58, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Mahantshetty, U.; Poetter, R.; Beriwal, S.; Grover, S.; Lavanya, G.; Rai, B.; Petric, P.; Tanderup, K.; Carvalho, H.; Hegazy, N.; et al. IBS-GEC ESTRO-ABS recommendations for CT based contouring in image guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2021, 160, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hegazy, N.; Potter, R.; Kirisits, C.; Berger, D.; Federico, M.; Sturdza, A.; Nesvacil, N. 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, 1345–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cho, L.P.; Manuel, M.; Catalano, P.; Lee, L.; Damato, A.L.; Cormack, R.A.; Buzurovic, I.; Bhagwat, M.; O’Farrell, D.; Devlin, P.M.; et al. Outcomes with volume-based dose specification in CT-planned high-dose-rate brachytherapy for stage I–II cervical carcinoma: A 10-year institutional experience. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 143, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Chan, W.L.; Cheng, M.H.; Wu, J.T.; Choi, C.W.; Tse, R.P.; Ho, P.P.; Cheung, E.E.; Cheung, A.; Test, K.Y.; Chan, K.K.; et al. Treatment Outcomes of Computer Tomography-Guided Brachytherapy in Cervical Cancer in Hong Kong: A Retrospective Review. Cancers 2022, 14, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. D’Cunha, P.; Gonzalez, Y.; Nwachukwu, C.; Hrycushko, B.; Medin, P.; Owrangi, A.; Jia, X.; Albuquerque, K. Change in image-guided planning strategies over time impacts oncologic and survival outcomes for intracavitary cervical cancer brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2022, 21, 668–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mesko, S.; Swamy, U.; Park, S.J.; Borja, L.; Wang, J.; Demanes, D.J.; Kamrava, M. Early clinical outcomes of ultrasound-guided CT-planned high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for primary locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy 2015, 14, 626–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ohno, T.; Noda, S.E.; Okonogi, N.; Murata, K.; Shibuya, K.; Kiyohara, H.; Tamaki, T.; Ando, K.; Oike, T.; Ohkubo, Y.; et al. In-room computed tomography-based brachytherapy for uterine cervical cancer: Results of a 5-year retrospective study. J. Radiat. Res. 2017, 58, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kawashima, A.; Isohashi, F.; Mabuchi, S.; Sawada, K.; Ueda, Y.; Kobayashi, E.; Matsumoto, Y.; Otani, K.; Tamari, K.; Seo, Y.; et al. A 3-year follow-up study of radiotherapy using computed tomography-based image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. J. Radiat. Res. 2019, 60, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Xiu, Y.T.; Meng, F.X.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, K.K.; Wang, Y.L.; Chen, Z.S.; Sun, B.S. Prognostic factors for IB2-IIIB cervical cancer patients treated by radiation therapy with high-dose-rate brachytherapy in a single-institution study. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2022, 14, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Uezono, H.; Tsujino, K.; Inoue, Y.; Kajihara, A.; Marudai, M.; Bessho, R.; Sekii, S.; Kubota, H.; Yamaguchi, S.; Ota, Y. CT-based image-guided brachytherapy in uterine cervical cancer: Effect of tumor dose and volume on local control. Brachytherapy 2022, 21, 814–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Choong, E.S.; Bownes, P.; Musunuru, H.B.; Rodda, S.; Richardson, C.; Al-Qaisieh, B.; Swift, S.; Orton, J.; Cooper, R. Hybrid (CT/MRI based) vs. MRI only based image-guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer: Dosimetry comparisons and clinical outcome. Brachytherapy 2016, 15, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Van Dyk, S.; Narayan, K.; Bernshaw, D.; Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan, S.; Khaw, P.; Lin, M.Y.; Schneider, M. Clinical outcomes from an innovative protocol using serial ultrasound imaging and a single MR image to guide brachytherapy for locally advanced cervix cancer. Brachytherapy 2016, 15, 817–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tharavichitkul, E.; Chakrabandhu, S.; Klunklin, P.; Onchan, W.; Jia-Mahasap, B.; Wanwilairat, S.; Tippanya, D.; Jayasvasti, R.; Sripan, P.; Galalae, R.M.; et al. Intermediate-term results of trans-abdominal ultrasound (TAUS)-guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 148, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tharavichitkul, E.; Jia-Mahasap, B.; Muangwong, P.; Chakrabandhu, S.; Klunklin, P.; Onchan, W.; Tippanya, D.; Nobnop, W.; Watcharawipha, A.; Kittidachanan, K.; et al. Survival outcome of cervical cancer patients treated by image-guided brachytherapy: A ‘real world’ single center experience in Thailand from 2008 to 2018. J. Radiat. Res. 2022, 63, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, N.; Park, W.; Cho, W.K.; Cho, Y.S. Clinical outcomes after positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 18, 743–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Trifiletti, D.M.; Libby, B.; Feuerlein, S.; Kim, T.; Garda, A.; Watkins, W.T.; Erickson, S.; Ornan, A.; Showalter, T.N. Implementing MRI-based target delineation for cervical cancer treatment within a rapid workflow environment for image-guided brachytherapy: A practical approach for centers without in-room MRI. Brachytherapy 2015, 14, 905–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Corriher, T.J.; Dutta, S.W.; Alonso, C.E.; Libby, B.; Romano, K.D.; Showalter, T.N. Comparison of initial computed tomography-based target delineation and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging-based target delineation for cervical cancer brachytherapy. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2020, 12, 279–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kidd, E.A.; Siegel, B.A.; Dehdashti, F.; Rader, J.S.; Mutic, S.; Mutch, D.G.; Powell, M.A.; Grigsby, P.W. Clinical outcomes of definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy with fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography simulation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010, 77, 1085–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Havrilesky, L.J.; Kulasingam, S.L.; Matchar, D.B.; Myers, E.R. FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2005, 97, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kidd, E.A. Imaging to optimize gynecological radiation oncology. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2022, 32, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Nam, H.; Huh, S.J.; Ju, S.G.; Park, W.; Lee, J.E.; Choi, J.Y.; Kim, B.T.; Kim, C.K.; Park, B.K. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emisson tomography/computed tomography guided conformal brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, e29–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lin, L.L.; Mutic, S.; Low, D.A.; LaForest, R.; Vicic, M.; Zoberi, I.; Miller, T.R.; Grigsby, P.W. Adaptive brachytherapy treatment planning for cervical cancer using FDG-PET. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007, 67, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Miller, T.R.; Grigsby, P.W. Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2002, 53, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lin, L.; Mutic, S.; Low, D.; LaForest, R.; Vicic, M.; Zoberi, I.; Miller, T.; Grigsby, P. Adaptive brachytherapy treatment planning for cervical cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005, 63, S213–S214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Oh, D.; Huh, S.J.; Park, W.; Ju, S.G.; Nam, H.; Lee, J.E. Clinical outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated by FDG-PET/CT-based 3-dimensional planning for the first brachytherapy session. Medicine 2016, 95, e3895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kim, N.; Park, W.; Cho, W.K.; Bae, D.-S.; Kim, B.-G.; Lee, J.-W.; Kim, T.-J.; Choi, C.H.; Lee, Y.-Y.; Cho, Y.S. Early metabolic response assessed using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for image-guided intracavitary brachytherapy can better predict treatment outcomes in patients with cervical cancer. Cancer Res. Treat. Off. J. Korean Cancer Assoc. 2021, 53, 803–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lucia, F.; Bourbonne, V.; Dissaux, G.; Miranda, O.; Abgral, R.; Pradier, O.; Schick, U. Use of Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT to Identify Initial Sub-Volumes with Local Failure after Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 105, E329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lucia, F.; Bourbonne, V.; Gujral, D.; Dissaux, G.; Miranda, O.; Mauguen, M.; Pradier, O.; Abgral, R.; Schick, U. Impact of suboptimal dosimetric coverage of pretherapeutic 18F-FDG PET/CT hotspots on outcome in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 23, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Schmid, M.P.; Nesvacil, N.; Potter, R.; Kronreif, G.; Kirisits, C. Transrectal ultrasound for image-guided adaptive brachytherapy in cervix cancer—An alternative to MRI for target definition? Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 120, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Van Dyk, S.; Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan, S.; Schneider, M.; Bernshaw, D.; Narayan, K. Assessing changes to the brachytherapy target for cervical cancer using a single MRI and serial ultrasound. Brachytherapy 2015, 14, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Tharavichitkul, E.; Tippanya, D.; Jayavasti, R.; Chakrabandhu, S.; Klunklin, P.; Onchan, W.; Wanwilairat, S.; Galalae, R.M.; Chitapanarux, I. Two-year results of transabdominal ultrasound-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Brachytherapy 2015, 14, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schmid, M.P.; Potter, R.; Brader, P.; Kratochwil, A.; Goldner, G.; Kirchheiner, K.; Sturdza, A.; Kirisits, C. Feasibility of transrectal ultrasonography for assessment of cervical cancer. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2013, 189, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nesvacil, N.; Schmid, M.P.; Potter, R.; Kronreif, G.; Kirisits, C. Combining transrectal ultrasound and CT for image-guided adaptive brachytherapy of cervical cancer: Proof of concept. Brachytherapy 2016, 15, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Smet, S.; Nesvacil, N.; Knoth, J.; Sturdza, A.; Najjari-Jamal, D.; Jelinek, F.; Kronreif, G.; Potter, R.; Widder, J.; Kirisits, C.; et al. Hybrid TRUS/CT with optical tracking for target delineation in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2020, 196, 983–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Van Dyk, S.; Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan, S.; Schneider, M.; Bernshaw, D.; Narayan, K. Comparison of measurements of the uterus and cervix obtained by magnetic resonance and transabdominal ultrasound imaging to identify the brachytherapy target in patients with cervix cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2014, 88, 860–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Van Dyk, S.; Narayan, K.; Fisher, R.; Bernshaw, D. Conformal Brachytherapy Planning for Cervical Cancer Using Transabdominal Ultrasound. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009, 75, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rao, P.B.; Ghosh, S. Routine use of ultrasound guided tandem placement in intracavitary brachytherapy for the treatment of cervical cancer—A South Indian institutional experience. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2015, 7, 352–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Viswanathan, A.N.; Moughan, J.; Small, W., Jr.; Levenback, C.; Iyer, R.; Hymes, S.; Dicker, A.P.; Miller, B.; Erickson, B.; Gaffney, D.K. The quality of cervical cancer brachytherapy implantation and the impact on local recurrence and disease-free survival in radiation therapy oncology group prospective trials 0116 and 0128. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2012, 22, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Sapienza, L.G.; Jhingran, A.; Kollmeier, M.A.; Lin, L.L.; Calsavara, V.F.; Gomes, M.J.L.; Baiocchi, G. Decrease in uterine perforations with ultrasound image-guided applicator insertion in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 151, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Pareek, V.; Barthwal, M.; Giridhar, P.; Patil, P.A.; Upadhyay, A.D.; Mallick, S. A phase III randomised trial of trans-abdominal ultrasound in improving application quality and dosimetry of intra-cavitary brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2021, 160, 375–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Mayr, N.A.; Montebello, J.F.; Sorosky, J.I.; Daugherty, J.S.; Nguyen, D.L.; Mardirossian, G.; Wang, J.Z.; Edwards, S.M.; Li, W.; Yuh, W.T. Brachytherapy management of the retroverted uterus using ultrasound-guided implant applicator placement. Brachytherapy 2005, 4, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Bell, J.B.; Portelance, L.; de la Zerda, A.; Wolfson, A. Practical Considerations During Brachytherapy Applicator Placement for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 13, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Schaner, P.E.; Caudell, J.J.; De Los Santos, J.F.; Spencer, S.A.; Shen, S.; Kim, R.Y. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance during intracavitary brachytherapy applicator placement in cervical cancer: The University of Alabama at Birmingham experience. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2013, 23, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chino, J.; Annunziata, C.M.; Beriwal, S.; Bradfield, L.; Erickson, B.A.; Fields, E.C.; Fitch, K.; Harkenrider, M.M.; Holschneider, C.H.; Kamrava, M.; et al. Radiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 10, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sapienza, L.G.; Ludwig, M.S.; Baiocchi, G. US-guided versus US-assisted tandem insertion for cervical cancer: A nomenclature proposal. Brachytherapy 2022, 21, 260–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Knoth, J.; Nesvacil, N.; Sturdza, A.; Kronreif, G.; Widder, J.; Kirisits, C.; Schmid, M.P. Toward 3D-TRUS image-guided interstitial brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Brachytherapy 2022, 21, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lin, Y.; Shi, D.; Li, H.; Cheng, G.; Wang, H. Application of transrectal ultrasound in guiding interstitial brachytherapy for advanced cervical cancer. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2020, 12, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rodgers, J.R.; Surry, K.; Leung, E.; D’Souza, D.; Fenster, A. Toward a 3D transrectal ultrasound system for verification of needle placement during high-dose-rate interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy. Med. Phys. 2017, 44, 1899–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Yang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, S.; Zeng, J.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, G. Verification of needle guidance accuracy in pelvic phantom using registered ultrasound and MRI images for intracavitary/interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2020, 12, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Zeng, J.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, S.; Pang, Q.; Wang, P. Verification of Guiding Needle Placement by Registered Ultrasound Image during Combined Intracavitary/Interstitial Gynecologic Brachytherapy. Cancer Manag. Res. 2021, 13, 1917–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Fields, E.C.; Hazell, S.; Morcos, M.; Schmidt, E.J.; Chargari, C.; Viswanathan, A.N. Image-Guided Gynecologic Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 30, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Viswanathan, A.N.; Szymonifka, J.; Tempany-Afdhal, C.M.; O’Farrell, D.A.; Cormack, R.A. A prospective trial of real-time magnetic resonance-guided catheter placement in interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2013, 12, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. De Arcos, J.; Schmidt, E.J.; Wang, W.; Tokuda, J.; Vij, K.; Seethamraju, R.T.; Damato, A.L.; Dumoulin, C.L.; Cormack, R.A.; Viswanathan, A.N. Prospective Clinical Implementation of a Novel Magnetic Resonance Tracking Device for Real-Time Brachytherapy Catheter Positioning. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 99, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Wang, W.; Dumoulin, C.L.; Viswanathan, A.N.; Tse, Z.T.; Mehrtash, A.; Loew, W.; Norton, I.; Tokuda, J.; Seethamraju, R.T.; Kapur, T.; et al. Real-time active MR-tracking of metallic stylets in MR-guided radiation therapy. Magn. Reson. Med. 2015, 73, 1803–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cunha, J.A.M.; Flynn, R.; Bélanger, C.; Callaghan, C.; Kim, Y.; Jia, X.; Chen, Z.; Beaulieu, L. Brachytherapy Future Directions. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 30, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Song, W.Y.; Robar, J.L.; Morén, B.; Larsson, T.; Carlsson Tedgren, Å.; Jia, X. Emerging technologies in brachytherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2021, 66, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Jiang, P.; Qu, A.; Wei, S.; Sun, H.; Zhang, X.; Li, X.; Wang, J. The Preliminary Results of 3-Dimensional Printed Individual Template Assisted 192Ir High-Dose Rate Interstitial Brachytherapy for Central Recurrent Gynecologic Cancer. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lindegaard, J.C.; Madsen, M.L.; Traberg, A.; Meisner, B.; Nielsen, S.K.; Tanderup, K.; Spejlborg, H.; Fokdal, L.U.; Nørrevang, O. Individualised 3D printed vaginal template for MRI guided brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2016, 118, 173–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Cobussen, A.; Petric, P.; Wulff, C.N.; Buus, S.; Spejlborg, H.; Nielsen, S.K.; Traberg, A.; Meisner, B.; Hokland, S.; Lindegaard, J.C. Clinical outcomes using a 3D printed tandem-needle-template and the EMBRACE-II planning aims for image guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Acta Oncol. 2023, 62, 1470–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Marar, M.; Simiele, E.; Niedermayr, T.; Kidd, E.A. Applying 3D-Printed Templates in High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Cervix Cancer: Simplified Needle Insertion for Optimized Dosimetry. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2022, 114, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Serban, M.; Fokdal, L.; Nielsen, S.K.; Hokland, S.B.; Hansen, A.T.; Spejlborg, H.; Rylander, S.; Petric, P.; Lindegaard, J.C.; Tanderup, K. Characterization of combined intracavitary/interstitial brachytherapy including oblique needles in locally advanced cervix cancer. Brachytherapy 2021, 20, 796–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Logar, H.B.Z.; Hudej, R.; Šegedin, B. Development and assessment of 3D-printed individual applicators in gynecological MRI-guided brachytherapy. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2019, 11, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zhang, D.; Yang, Z.; Jiang, S.; Zhou, L.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, W. Individualized and inverse optimized needle configuration for combined intracavitary-interstitial brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2019, 15, 1589–1596. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, K.; Wang, J.; Jiang, P. High-Dose-Rate Three-Dimensional Image-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy (3D IGABT) for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC): A Narrative Review on Imaging Modality and Clinical Evidence. Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31, 50-65. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31010004

AMA Style

Wang K, Wang J, Jiang P. High-Dose-Rate Three-Dimensional Image-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy (3D IGABT) for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC): A Narrative Review on Imaging Modality and Clinical Evidence. Current Oncology. 2024; 31(1):50-65. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31010004

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Kaiyue, Junjie Wang, and Ping Jiang. 2024. "High-Dose-Rate Three-Dimensional Image-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy (3D IGABT) for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC): A Narrative Review on Imaging Modality and Clinical Evidence" Current Oncology 31, no. 1: 50-65. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31010004

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop