The objective of this study is to test the impact of the use of the apex optimization line for new vaginal cylinder (VC) applicators. New single channel VC applicators (Varian) that have different top thicknesses but the same diameters as the old VC applicators (2.0 cm diameter, 2.3, 2.6, 3.0, and 3.5 cm) were compared using phantom studies. Old VC applicator plans without the apex optimization line were also compared to the plans with an apex optimization line. The apex doses were monitored at 5 mm depth doses (eight points) where a prescription dose (Rx) of 6 Gy was prescribed. VC surface doses (eight points) were also analyzed. The new VC applicator plans without apex optimization line presented significantly lower 5‐mm depth doses over the Rx (on average −31 ± 7%, P < 0.00001) due to thicker VC tops (3.4 ± 1.1 mm thicker with the range of 1.2–4.4 mm) than the old VC applicators. Old VC applicator plans also showed a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.00001) due to the Ir‐192 source anisotropic effect at the apex region, but the percent reduction over the Rx was only −7 ± 9%. However, by adding the apex optimization line to the new VC applicator plans, the plans improved 5‐mm depth doses (−7 ± 9% over Rx) that were not statistically different from old VC applicator plans (P = 0.923), along with apex VC surface doses (−22 ± 10% over old VC vs −46 ± 7% without using apex optimization line). The use of the apex optimization line is important in order to avoid significant additional cold doses (−24 ± 2%) at the prescription depth (5 mm) of the apex, specifically for the new VC applicators that have thicker tops. A template‐based vaginal cylinder planning reduced the intra‐ and inter‐planner variations of manual generation of apex optimization line, along with treatment time.

The objective of this study was to assess the recommended DVH parameter (e.g., D2 cc) addition method used for combining EBRT and HDR plans, against a reference dataset generated from an EQD2‐based DVH addition method. A revised DVH parameter addition method using EBRT DVH parameters derived from each patient's plan was proposed and also compared with the reference dataset. Thirty‐one biopsy‐proven cervical cancer patients who received EBRT and HDR brachytherapy were retrospectively analyzed. A parametrial and/or paraaortic EBRT boost were clinically performed on 13 patients. Ten IMRT and 21 3DCRT plans were determined. Two different HDR techniques for each HDR plan were analyzed. Overall D2 cc and D0.1 cc OAR doses in EQD2 were statistically analyzed for three different DVH parameter addition methods: a currently recommended method, a proposed revised method, and a reference DVH addition method. The overall D2 ccEQD 2 values for all rectum, bladder, and sigmoid for a conformal, volume optimization HDR plan generated using the current DVH parameter addition method were significantly underestimated on average −5 to −8% when compared to the values obtained from the reference DVH addition technique (P < 0.01). The revised DVH parameter addition method did not present statistical differences with the reference technique (P > 0.099). When PM boosts were considered, there was an even greater average underestimation of −8~−10% for overall OAR doses of conformal HDR plans when using the current DVH parameter addition technique as compared to the revised DVH parameter addition. No statistically significant differences were found between the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques (P > 0.3148). It is recommended that the overall D2 cc EBRT doses are obtained from each patient's EBRT plan.