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

There are many confounding variables that influence the doses to organs at risk during a specific intracavitary brachytherapy (ICB) session on a patient receiving treatment for cancer cervix. For example one of the confounding variable is individual anatomy. Clinical experience suggests that the anatomical variations among patients undergoing ICB play a crucial role in the dosages received by organs at risk during intracavitary brachytherapy procedures. While some patients exhibit anatomy that results in minimal doses to critical organs when specific brachytherapy applicators and organ retraction techniques are utilized, others display higher doses due to inherent anatomical variations, for the same dose prescribed to the tumor utilizing same applicator type, technique and loading pattern. Therefore, when comparing two techniques for rectum separation in terms of OAR doses, it is essential to consider that the individuals in the comparison groups may vary. This variation could potentially influence the positive outcomes observed in a group, leading to uncertainty about whether these outcomes are truly attributed to the technique itself or simply due to a higher number of patients with favorable anatomy in that specific group. To mitigate this confounding factor, it is imperative that both techniques are applied to each patient individually, ensuring that the comparison groups consist of the same individuals. Other confounding variables like size of the ring or ovoids, tandem length, tandem angle, loading pattern, point A definition can also influence the doses to organs at risk. In our study titled: A retrospective analysis to compare the dosimetric parameters of two rectum-sparing techniques during intracavitary brachytherapy with tandem-ring applicators for cervical cancer, in the subset analysis all these variables are matched in both comparison groups by ensuring that both techniques are applied on each patient during two sessions performed repeating the tandem-ring applicators with same physical parameters. Therefore the two sessions done on one patient differ only with regard to rectum separation technique. We want to share in detail the physical parameters that we took into account during each ICB session and help other researchers to critically examine our work. Intention is to make our work transparent for feedback and continued improvement.