Table 1.
Studies about dosimetric comparison between brachytherapy (BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with data of at least 5 patients
| Site/author | EBRT technique | Patient no. | Reference plan with contours | CTV–PTV margina (mm) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain | |||||
| Milickovic [16] | SRS | 5 | SRS | NR | 20 non-coplanar beams for SRS |
| Breast | |||||
| Patel [17] | 3D-CRT, HT | 13 | BT | 10, 5, 0 | Margin: 3D-CRT 10 mm, supine HT 5 mm, prone HT 0 mm |
| Charagvandi [18] | VMAT | 20 | VMAT | NR | Single-fraction ablative radiotherapy |
| Terheyden [19] | 3D-CRT | 136 | Two patient cohorts | NR | Boost was given to 36 patients with BT and to 100 with 3D-CRT |
| Major [20] | IMRT | 34 | BT | 5 | 4–5 coplanar beams for IMRT |
| Shahbazian [21] | 3D-CRT | 15 | BT | 5 | Deeply seated tumours |
| Fröhlich [22] | SBRT with CK | 25 | CK | 2 | Virtual BT plans on CTs with contours for CK |
| Herein [23] | SBRT with CK | 32 | Two patient cohorts | 2 | Comparison between real treatment plans |
| Periasamy [24] | VMAT | 50 | Two patient cohorts | 5 | Tumour bed boost after whole-breast irradiation |
| Gynaecological | |||||
| Georg [25] | IMRT, IMPT | 9 | BT | 3–5 | High-tech EBRT vs. high-tech BT |
| Shwetha [26] | IMRT | 10 | BT | NR | Pear-shaped dose distribution of BT mimicked by IMRT |
| Gielda [27] | HT | 6 | BT | 0 | 3–5 mm CTV–PTV margin for BT and HT |
| Sharma [28] | IMRT | 12 | BT | 3–5 | Interstitial BT vs. IMRT for cervical cancer |
| Cengiz [29] | SBRT with CK | 11 | BT | 0 | BT with a tandem and two ovoids with dosimetry on point A |
| Neumann [30] | CK | 11 | CK + real BT patients | 0 | Emulating BT-like inhomogeneous dose distributions |
| Khosla [31] | IMRT | 15 | BT and IMRT | 10 | Two series of CT scans, one for BT and one for IMRT |
| Otahal [32] | CK | 10 | BT | 0 | MRI-based intracavitary and interstitial BT |
| Pinzi [33] | IMRT | 15 | BT | 7–10 | BT and IMRT for boost only |
| Wali [34] | VMAT | 10 | BT | 5 | Boost with VMAT in replacing BT |
| Jones [35] | SBRT with HT | 15 | BT | 2 | Endometrium, 2 mm CTV–PTV margin in HT plans |
| Kauffmann [36] | 3D-Arc and SBRT | 6 | BT | 5 | PTV for EBRT was created from 100% isodose cloud of BT |
| Cilla [37] | VMAT | 8 | BT | 3 | Treatment of vaginal cuff in postoperative endometrial cancer |
| Aydogan [38] | IMRT | 10 | BT | 0 | Postoperative vaginal cuff boost for endometrial cancer |
| Yildrim [39] | VMAT | 8 | BT | 5 | Treatment of vaginal cuff in postoperative endometrial cancer |
| Pedicini [40] | VMAT | 27 | BT | 2 | Treatment of the vaginal vault |
| Head and neck | |||||
| Akiyama [41] | VMAT | 38 | BT | 0 | Identical PTVs in VMAT and BT plans |
| Liver | |||||
| Pennington [42] | SABR | 9 | SABR | 0 | Planning goal was equal target volume coverage by PD |
| Hass [43] | SBRT | 85 | BT | 5–10 | 5–10 mm margin for tumour motion in SBRT plans |
| Walter [44] | SBRT | 38 | BT | 6 | 46 treatment plans, 6 mm CTV–PTV margin for SBRT |
| Lung | |||||
| Milickovic [16] | SBRT | 5 | SBRT | NR | 9–10 non-coplanar beams for SBRT |
| Chan [45] | SBRT | 9 | BT | 3 | VMAT-based MLC-tracking SBRT |
| Prostate | |||||
| Hsu [46] | 3D-CRT | 5 | BT | 10 | 7‑field conformal EBRT plans |
| Fuller [47] | SBRT with CK | 10 | SBRT | 3–5 | Ideally placed catheters in virtual BT plans |
| Hermesse [48] | IMRT and HT | 10 | BT | 4–10 | The same target coverage for each technique |
| Hermesse [49] | IMRT | 10 | BT | 4–10 and 0 | Additional IMRT plans with 0 mm CTV–PTV margin |
| Murali [50] | IMRT | 10 | Two patient cohorts | 3–5 | Step-and-shoot IMRT with seven coplanar beams |
| Sudahar [51] | CK | 13 | Two patient cohorts | NR | HDR equivalent doses to CK doses |
| Spratt [52] | SBRT | 5 | BT | NR | PTV100 of virtual SBRT was matched to V100 of BT |
| Georg [53] | VMAT, IMPT, IMIT | 10 | VMAT | 5–8 | HDR/LDR BT techniques, IMRT for protons and ions |
| Fukuda [54] | SBRT with CK | 6 | BT | 2 | Common CT images and contouring sets |
| Andrzejewski [55] | VMAT, IMPT | 12 | VMAT | 4–5 | Boosting to dominant intraprostatic lesions |
| Yang [56] | VMAT | 10 | VMAT | 5 | HDR and LDR BT plans were created |
| Eade [57] | SBRT | 21 | SBRT | 7 | Escalation of boost dose for the GTV |
| Sanmamed [58] | VMAT | 40 | Two patient cohorts | 3–5 | Integrated VMAT boost vs. HDR-BT boost |
| Chatzikonstantinou [59] | SBRT with CK | 15 | SBRT | 1–3 | Virtual HDR-BT plans |
| Fröhlich [60] | VMAT with CK | 10 | CK | 3 | LDR- and single-fraction HDR-BT |
| Willigenburg [61] | IMRT with MR-linac | 30 | BT | 1 | Focal salvage treatment, 1 mm CTV–PTV margin for IMRT |
| Skin | |||||
| Park [62] | Electron and photons | 6 | NA | 5 | All plans were virtual for electron, photon, IMRT and VMAT |
| Boman [63] | VMAT | 7 | BT | 3 | 4 scalp and 3 lower leg moulds |
| Sen [64] | Electron | 10 | BT | 0 | Electron plans with different energies and bolus thicknesses |
| Mitra [65] | VMAT | 12 | BT | NA | PTV for VMAT was created from 100% BT isodose volume |
| Wills [66] | VMAT | 14 | BT or VMAT | 5 | 9 scalp and 5 extremities moulds |
| Buzurovic [67] | Electron | 37 | BT | NR | EBRT plans with 6 MeV electrons and 1 cm bolus |
SRS stereotactic radiosurgery, NR not reported, VMAT volume modulated arc therapy, IMRT intensity-modulated radiotherapy, BT brachytherapy, CK CyberKnife, SBRT stereotactic body radiotherapy, SABR stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, HT helical tomotherapy, IMPT intensity-modulated proton beam therapy, IMIT intensity-modulated carbon-ion therapy, MLC multileaf collimator, HDR high-dose-rate, LDR low-dose-rate, PD prescribed dose, NA not applicable
aIn EBRT plans