TO TR P value

Right point A mean dose (cGy) 693 � 17 686 � 39 0.55

Left point A mean dose (cGy) 691 � 21 673 � 42 0.16

Right point B mean dose (cGy) 233 � 56 179 � 39 0.00086

Left point B mean dose (cGy) 214 � 61 198 � 48 0.32

Rectum mean dose (cGy) 223 � 65 162 � 35 0.00018

Rectum D2cc(cGy) 408 � 111 360 � 105 0.148

Bladder mean dose (cGy) 329 � 112 328 � 75 0.97

Bladder D2cc(cGy) 438 � 196 397þ98 0.35

Sigmoid mean dose (cGy) 184 � 61 185 � 47 0.95

Sigmoid D2cc(cGy) 433 � 221 365 � 87 0.16

V95%(cc) 123 � 25 104 � 26 0.018

V85% (cc) 147 � 30 123 � 31 0.012

V50%(cc) 329 � 70 267 � 68 0.0050

V20%(cc) 1187 � 253 972 � 242 0.0064

CTV100%(%) 55 � 14 58 � 11 0.45

D90(%) 56 � 16 55 � 12 0.77

Mean treatment time (sees) 848 � 188 673 � 73 0.00005

$grade 2 GI toxicity (%) 20 25 1.00

$grade 2 GU toxicity (%) 0 0 NS

S89Abstracts / Brachytherapy 13 (2014) S15eS126

PO12

Clinical Effect after Different Dose Treatment Planning

Brachytherapy Cancer of the Cervix

Vladimir G. Turkevich, MD. Radiation Oncology and Radiology, N.N.

Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint-Petersburg, Russian

Federation.

Purpose: To ascertain causal dependence early and late toxicity fromdifferent method dose treatment planning brachytherapy for combineradiotherapy carcinoma of the uterine cervix.Materials and Methods: The data of 485 patients with carcinoma of theuterine cervix stage IB-3B, who obtained the radiotherapy in PetrovResearch Institute of Oncology Ministry of Health, Saint Petersburg werestudied. All patients were treated using a combination of (EBRT þBrachytherapy) radiotherapy. For EBRT was used the Russian linearaccelerators of electrons LUEV-15 M1 (Ex515 Mev) and LUE -25(Ex525 Mev). Brachytherapy with HDR on «MicroSelectron HDR Ir-192» was underwent 485 patients with "Ring Applicator Sets" used. Themode for fractionating the summary target dose (STD): 7Gy, once aweek, STD528Gy (BEDe548, BEDl5106). For the dose treatmentplanning brachytherapy cancer cervix in our department used Viennamethod for 261 patients (First group). For the dose treatment planningbrachytherapy 224 patients (Second group) we used a modified Viennamethod for individualized dose and volume adaptation based on standardring applicators. This new method was registered by license 1 2299081,May 20 2007, from Federal license foundation Russian Federation.Results: The total number of acute toxicity among patients in the Secondgroup treated with HDR brachytherapy substantially (p! 0.05) was 10%less in comparison with Fist group, due to the reliable (p! 0.05) decreaseto 7% of a quantity early rectum toxicity. The total number of latetoxicity among patients in the First group treated with HDRbrachytherapy substantially (p! 0.05) was 6% more in comparison withSecond group, due to a reliable (p! 0.05) increase in to 3% the quantityof late urinary bladder toxicity.Conclusions: Quantity early and late toxicity substantially depend onmethod dose treatment planning brachytherapy for combined radiotherapyfor cervical cancer.

PO13

Short-Term Clinical Outcome and Dosimetric Comparison of

Tandem and Ring vs Tandem and Ovoids Intracavitary Applicators

John K. Ma, MD, PhD1, Robert Allbright, MD1, Satyaseelan

Packianathan, MD, PhD1, Edmund Chinchar, BS2, Alex Nguyen, BS1,

Srinivasan Vijayakumar, MD1. 1Radiation Oncology, University of

Mississippi, Jackson, MS; 2School of Medicine, University of Mississippi,

Jackson, MS.

Purpose: To compare the short-term toxicity as well as the dosimetricprofiles of tandem and ring (TR) and tandem and ovoid (TO) applicatorsin the setting of multifractionated high-dose-rate brachytherapy forgynecologic malignancy.Materials and Methods: All patients were first treated with externalbeam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the whole pelvis (45 - 50.4 Gy at1.8 Gy per fraction) with platinum based chemotherapy. A total of 52computed tomography-based plans for a total of 13 patients withcervical cancer (FIGO IB2-IIIB) were evaluated. Each patient wasprescribed 7 Gy to the International Commission on Radiation Units(ICRU) point A for four fractions given one week apart.Gastrointestinal toxicity and genitourinary toxicity were evaluatedweekly and graded according to RTOG toxicity criteria, with the finalevaluation for short-term toxicity completed at one month after the lastinsertion. Clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (rectum,bladder, and sigmoid colon) were delineated on each computedtomography scan after each insertion. Bladder, rectum, and sigmoidmean doses and D2cc were calculated. Mean treatment time and totalvolume of all tissues receiving 95% (V95%), 85% (V85%), 50%(V50%), and 20% (V20%) of the prescription dose were compared.Percent of CTV receiving 100% (CTV100%) of the prescribed dose as

well as the percent of the prescription dose covering 90% of the CTV(D90) were evaluated.Results: There were no significant differences in $ grade 2 GI toxicitybetween patients who were treated with TO applicator (25%) vs TRapplicator (20%). Similarly, no significant differences in $ grade 2 GUtoxicity between TO (0%) and TR (0%) were seen. No significant differencein the dose to the right point A, the left point A, or the left point B wasobserved between the two applicators. TO applicator delivered a higher doseto right point B. Mean bladder dose, mean sigmoid dose, bladder D2cc,rectal D2cc, and sigmoid D2cc were similar between the two applicators.Mean rectal dose was lower for TO applicator. All data points measured forthe total tissue volume covered (V95% V85%, V50%, and V20%) indicateda larger volume treated by TO in comparison to TR applicator. Meantreatment time was shorter for TR than for TO. Tumor coverage (D90 andCTV100%) was equivalent between TO and TR applicators.Conclusions: The results show that though the two applicators deliversimilar prescribed dose to point A and maintain critical organ dosesbelow tolerance, they treat different volumes. Higher amounts of normaltissue are treated by TO applicator, though the short-term toxicities arenot increased. Though TR applicator covers less total tissue volume, dosedistribution to the tumor volume is not compromised. Longer followupperiod is required to evaluate long -term clinical outcomes such as loco-regional control, disease free survival, overall survival, long-term toxicity,and quality of life.

PO14

Clinical Outcomes of Vaginal Carcinoma Following Definitive

Radiotherapy, Chemotherapy, and HDR Brachytherapy

Addison B. Willett, JD, MBA1,2, Lane R. Rosen, MD1,2, Destin R. Black,

MD1,2, Robin A. Lacour, MD1,2, Clifton F. Frilot, PhD, MBA, PE2, J. Ben

Wilkinson, MD1,2, Sanford Katz, MD1,2, Michael Durci, MD1,2, Joseph

Syh, PhD1, Terry Wu, PhD1. 1Willis Knighton, Shreveport, LA, USA; 2LSU

Health Shreveport, Shreveport, LA.

Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes for patients with vaginal cancertreated with primary radiation therapy with or without high-dose-rate(HDR) brachytherapy or chemotherapy.Materials and Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective chart review wasperformed to identify patients treated at a single institution with radiationtherapy with or without HDR brachytherapy or chemotherapy for vaginalcancer between the dates of January 2010 and July 2013. Eleven patientswere evaluated for locoregional control, overall survival and treatment-