Clinical factors affecting the therapeutic dose window in cervical cancer brachytherapy

A systematic review and meta-regression

Review (2026)
Author(s)

Robin Straathof (TU Delft - Mechanical Engineering)

Lotte I. Pool (Student TU Delft)

Sharline M. van Vliet-Pérez (Erasmus MC)

Inger Karine K. Kolkman-Deurloo (Erasmus MC)

Ben J.M. Heijmen (Erasmus MC)

Linda S.G.L. Wauben (TU Delft - Mechanical Engineering)

Henrike Westerveld (Erasmus MC)

Jenny Dankelman (TU Delft - Mechanical Engineering)

Remi A. Nout (Erasmus MC)

Nick J.van de Berg (Erasmus MC)

Research Group
Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technology
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2025.11.005 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2026
Language
English
Research Group
Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technology
Journal title
Brachytherapy
Issue number
3
Volume number
25
Pages (from-to)
411-423
Downloads counter
11
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although dose planning aims in cervical cancer brachytherapy are well-defined, variability in clinical practices makes it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions on achievable dosimetry. This review and meta-regression aim to assess clinical practices in terms of their therapeutic dose window, that is, the balance between target and organs-at-risk (OAR) doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the literature was performed in Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Peer-reviewed articles were included that described planning constraints and reported high-risk clinical target volume (CTVHR) D90% and OAR D2cm3 for intracavitary (IC) tandem and ring (T&R) / tandem and ovoid (T&O) / mold (M) applicators, possibly supplemented with interstitial (IS) needles (+N). To determine factors associated with target volume coverage (D90%) and OAR sparing (D2cm3), multivariate meta-regressions were performed. RESULTS: Out of 1590 articles, 34 met the full inclusion criteria. In most studies, the CTVHR D90% aimed at ≥84–86 Gy EQD2α/β = 10Gy, and constraints for the OARs were 80–90 Gy, 65–75 Gy and 70–75 Gy EQD2α/β = 3Gy for the bladder, rectum and sigmoid D2cm3, respectively. Studies using IC/IS applicators were associated with a ∼4 Gy increase in CTVHR D90% compared to IC only, with no effect on OAR dose. T&R studies achieved improvements of 3.2 Gy and 2.8–3.4 Gy at typical planning aims in comparison with T&O applicators in target and OAR doses. In 100% (15/15) of patient groups treated with T&R + N both CTVHR and OAR objectives were met for the population average. For T&R, T&O, and T&O + N groups, this was the case in 89% (8/9), 43% (6/14), and 50% (4/8), respectively. CONCLUSION: Studies using interstitial needles with T&R applicators in MR-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer seem to be associated with a favorable therapeutic target dose/OAR sparing ratio.