Tools for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy are widely available, but guidelines for clinical implementation are missing. The goal was to develop a workflow for performance evaluation of three commercial auto-segmentation tools to select one candidate for clinical implementation. One hundred patients with six treatment sites (brain, head-and-neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis) were included. Three sets of AI-based contours for organs-at-risk (OAR) generated by three software tools and manually drawn expert contours were blindly rated for contouring accuracy. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC), the Hausdorff distance, and a dose/volume evaluation based on the recalculation of the original treatment plan were assessed. Statistically significant differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the post-hoc Dunn Test with Bonferroni correction. The mean DSC scores compared to expert contours for all OARs combined were 0.80 ± 0.10, 0.75 ± 0.10, and 0.74 ± 0.11 for the three software tools. Physicians' rating identified equivalent or superior performance of some AI-based contours in head (eye, lens, optic nerve, brain, chiasm), thorax (e.g., heart and lungs), and pelvis and abdomen (e.g., kidney, femoral head) compared to manual contours. For some OARs, the AI models provided results requiring only minor corrections. Bowel-bag and stomach were not fit for direct use. During the interdisciplinary discussion, the physicians' rating was considered the most relevant. A comprehensive method for evaluation and clinical implementation of commercially available auto-segmentation software was developed. The in-depth analysis yielded clear instructions for clinical use within the radiotherapy department.

The standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer typically includes concomitant chemoradiation, a regimen known to induce severe hematologic toxicity (HT). Particularly, pelvic bone marrow dose exposure has been identified as a contributing factor to this hematologic toxicity. Chemotherapy further increases bone marrow suppression, often necessitating treatment interruptions or dose reductions. A systematic search for original articles published between 1 January 2006 and 7 January 2024 that reported on chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer and hematologic toxicities was conducted. Twenty-four articles comprising 1539 patients were included in the final analysis. HT of grade 2 and higher was observed across all studies and frequently exceeded 50%. When correlating active pelvic bone marrow and HT, significant correlations were found for volumes between 10 and 45 Gy and HT of grade 3 and higher. Several dose recommendations for pelvic bone and pelvic bone marrow sparing to reduce HT were established, including V10 < 90–95%, V20 < 65–86.6% and V40 < 22.8–40%. Applying dose constraints to the pelvic bone/bone marrow is a promising approach for reducing HT, and thus reliable implementation of therapy. However, prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to define precise dose constraints and optimize clinical strategies.

To qualitatively and quantitatively analyze needle visibility in combined intracavitary and interstitial cervical cancer brachytherapy on 3D transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in comparison to gold standard MRI. Image acquisition was done with a customized TRUS stepper unit and software (Medcom, Germany; Elekta, Sweden; ACMIT, Austria) followed by an MRI on the same day with the applicator in place. Qualitative assessment was done with following scoring system: 0 = no visibility 1 (= poor), 2 (= fair), 3 (= excellent) discrimination, quantitative assessment was done by measuring the distance between each needle and the tandem two centimeters (cm) above the ring and comparing to the respective measurement on MRI. Twenty-nine implants and a total of 188 needles (132 straight, 35 oblique, 21 free-hand) were available. Overall, 79% were visible (87% straight, 51% oblique, 76% free-hand). Mean visibility score was 1.4 ± 0.5 for all visible needles. Distance of the visible needles to tandem was mean ± standard deviation (SD) 21.3 millimeters (mm) ± 6.5 mm on MRI and 21.0 mm ± 6.4 mm on TRUS, respectively. Difference between MRI and TRUS was max 14 mm, mean ± SD -0.3 mm ± 2.6 mm. 11% differed more than 3 mm. Straight needles were better detectable than oblique needles (87% vs. 51%). Detectability was impaired by insufficient rotation of the TRUS probe, poor image quality or anatomic variation. As needles show a rather indistinct signal on TRUS, online detection with a standardized imaging protocol in combination with tracking should be investigated, aiming at the development of real time image guidance and online treatment planning.

Objective: This study aimed to prospectively assess the visibility of interstitial needles on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in cervical cancer brachytherapy patients and evaluate its impact on implant and treatment plan quality. Material and methods: TRUS was utilized during and after applicator insertion, with each needle’s visibility documented through axial images at the high-risk clinical target volume’s largest diameter. Needle visibility on TRUS was scored from 0 (no visibility) to 3 (excellent discrimination, margins distinct). Quantitative assessment involved measuring the distance between tandem and each needle on TRUS and comparing it to respective magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements. Expected treatment plan quality based on TRUS images was rated from 1 (meeting all planning objectives) to 4 (violation of High-risk clinical target volume (CTV_HR) and/or organ at risk (OAR) hard constraints) and compared to the final MRI-based plan. Results: Analysis included 23 patients with local FIGO stage IB2-IVA, comprising 41 applications with a total of 230 needles. A high visibility rate of 99.1% (228/230 needles) was observed, with a mean visibility score of 2.5 ± 0.7 for visible needles. The maximum and mean difference between MRI and TRUS measurements were 8 mm and –0.1 ± 1.6 mm, respectively, with > 3 mm discrepancies in 3.5% of needles. Expected treatment plan quality after TRUS assessment exactly aligned with the final MRI plan in 28 out of 41 applications with only minor deviations in all other cases. Conclusion: Real-time TRUS-guided interstitial needle placement yielded high-quality implants, thanks to excellent needle visibility during insertion. This supports the potential of TRUS-guided brachytherapy as a promising modality for gynecological indications.

Purpose: This survey aimed to determine the perception of brachytherapy training among residents in the DACH region, consisting of Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Material & Methods: An online questionnaire containing 22 questions related to trainee demographics (n = 5) and to brachytherapy training (n = 17) was sent in two iterations in 11/2019 and 02/2020. The following topics were evaluated: institutional support, barriers to training, extent of training, site-specific training (prostate, gynaecology, breast, gastrointestinal and skin), preferences for further training and outlook on overall development of brachytherapy. The responses were mostly based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, thereby reflecting strength of opinion. Descriptive statistics were used to describe frequencies. Results: Among the 108 respondents, approximately 69% of residents considered the ability to perform brachytherapy independently to be important or somewhat important. However, only 31% of respondents reported to have a dedicated brachytherapy training during residency. The major limitation to achieve independence in performing brachytherapy was seen in a low case load in Austria, in the lack of training in Switzerland and in both of them in Germany. Conclusion: The interest in brachytherapy training among residents in German-speaking countries was generally high, but there is a perceived lack of sufficient case volumes and partially also in formal training opportunities. Fellowships at departments with a high case load as part of a formalised curriculum and dedicated hands-on workshops at national or international conferences might help to overcome these issues.

Bartl T, et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2025 Apr;36:e99. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2025.36.e99