Purpose: To compare the standard International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements–38 (ICRU–38) rectum and bladder point doses with a modified technique of combining radio–opaque vaginal packing (VP) and rectal retractor (RR) versus the conventional technique of using RR alone for rectum separation during high–dose–rate (HDR)–ICB with tandem–ring (TR) applicators. Methods: Between January 2021 and August 2022, 41 cancer patients received at least one ICB session with the conventional and at least one with the modified technique using the same applicator set and loading pattern. The remaining ICB sessions, were done using that technique, which gave the best dosimetric parameters during previous sessions in that particular patient. Results: Out of total 111 ICB sessions with TR applicators, 44 constitute conventional group and 67 modified group. For the same dose (100%) prescribed to point A in both groups, the mean dose to the ICRU rectal point was 44.1% of the prescription dose (range:23.8–77.8%, median 42.5%) in modified group and 55.5% (range: 36.4–73.1%, median 56.5%) in the conventional group. There was 11.4% reduction in mean dose to the ICRU rectal point (p<0.001). The mean dose to the ICRU bladder point was 55.5% of the prescription dose (range, 14.8–127.2%, median 55.5%) in the modified group and 49.8% (range 11.6–95.6%, median 51.5%) in the conventional group. There was 5.7% increase in the mean dose to the ICRU bladder point (p=0.21). The other point doses and volume parameters were similar between groups. Conclusion: Modified technique of combining rectal retractor with customised radio–opaque vaginal packing, significantly reduced the ICRU rectal point dose, compared to using a rectal retractor alone during brachytherapy with tandem–ring applicators

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Institutional Ethics Committee of Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla-171001 gave ethical approval for this work

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced are available online at Harvard Dataverse Dataset Replication Data for A retrospective analysis to compare the dosimetric parameters of two rectum sparing techniques during intracavitary brachytherapy with tandem– ring applicators for cervical cancer

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/13BFHP