Work

Comparison of dose calculation approaches and clinical dose–response in image-guided head&neck brachytherapy of the oral cavity

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Purpose Model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) are increasingly applied in brachytherapy, but their considerations in dose–response analyses is still lacking. This study aimed to assess correlations between both TG-43 and MBDCA dosimetry and reports on clinical outcomes for oral cavity brachytherapy. Methods We considered 158 patients with oral cavity cancer treated in our institution between 2012 and 2021. Survival outcomes and toxicity (soft tissue necrosis, osteoradionecrosis, mucositis, xerostomia) were reported for a median follow-up of 80 months (2–152 months). All clinical, TG-43 based treatment plans were re-calculated using a MBDCA integrated into our planning system. Differences considering several target volume, tissue, and bone dose parameters were evaluated. Parameter correlations with clinical outcomes and thresholds associated with increased toxicity were investigated. Results Cumulative local recurrence, soft-tissue necrosis, osteoradionecrosis, mucositis, and xerostomia rate were 21 %, 22 %, 28 % and 79 % considering all patients. Substantial differences between MBDCA and TG-43 were observed, especially regarding high-dose areas with changes up to 19 %. A number of dose-toxicity correlations were observed, as for osteoradionecrosis (1.6 % vs. 10.3 % for bone D 2ccm ≥ 59.3 Gy), soft tissue necrosis (16 % vs. 32 % for tissue D 5ccm ≥ 87.7 Gy), and local recurrence (13 % vs. 25 % for dose non-uniformity ratio < 0.29) (using the MBDCA). Target volumes ≥ 10.2–11.8ccm were associated with increased rates of soft tissue necrosis and mucositis. Dosimetric thresholds and correlations differed between TG-43 and MBDCA. Conclusion For oral cavity brachytherapy, several important dosimetric thresholds associated with increased toxicity were determined. MBDCAs for corresponding dose calculations should be advanced and used in clinical practice.

Source: Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology

DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2025.100968