reviewerscomments.docVIP

Reviewers’ Comments: Reviewer B: This is a fairly straightforward article written to assess the geometric accuracy of positioning the point A during 2D brachytherapy planning. The authors are using 2D planning via two orthogonal films acquired after brachytherapy catheters were inserted to the patient and they determine the location of the left and right point A on the films via their institutional policy which matches international standard. Then they argue that in some cases, namely when tandem flange is relatively distant from the simulators isocenter in the AP /PA direction or when the tandem’s projection onto the horizontal plane makes a substantial angle with the gantry rotation axis, the corresponding actual position of these points in the patient body deviates from the presumed(defined and needed) position of point As. The researchers quantified this mismatch and parameterized it as a function of the distance of the flange from the simulator’s isocenter in the vertical direction as well as of the angle between the tandem’s projection into the horizontal plane and the gantry rotation axis. Please find my comments: Comment 1: Authors never discussed what type of brachytherapy procedures they are doing, i.e. single fraction CS137 LDR, fractionated HDR etc. This is important to be mentioned, so the reader will have a better picture of the significance of their findings. For example, in fractionated approach, the interfractional variations in implant geometry will smear out potential clinical dosimetric implications of the A point shifts the authors found. In single fraction, long implants, intrafraction applicator motion also smears out potential dosimetric implications. So ma comment is to ask the authors to elaborate on why they think this is clinically relevant. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The type of brachytherapy procedure we performed was added in the first paragraph of Materials and Methods (Line 352-353). Due to only five or six trea