Alfredo Polo

GEC-ESTRO recommendations for brachytherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.

Both primary and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck are classic indications for brachytherapy. A high rate of local tumor control at the cost of limited morbidity can be achieved with brachytherapy through good patient selection, meticulous source implantation and careful treatment planning. However, no randomized trials have been performed, and there is scant evidence in the literature especially regarding practical clinical recommendations for brachytherapy for head and neck subsites. The Head and Neck Working Group of the European Brachytherapy Group (Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) therefore decided to formulate the present consensus recommendations for low-dose rate, pulsed-dose rate and high-dose rate brachytherapy. The use of brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy and/or surgery is also covered as well as the use of brachytherapy in previously irradiated patients. Given the paucity of evidence in the literature, these recommendations are mainly based on clinical experience accumulated by the members of the working group over several decades and the respective publications. The recommendations cover in a general part (1) patient selection, the pre-treatment work up and patient care, (2) treatment strategy, (3) target definition, (4) implant techniques, (5) dose and dose rate prescription, (6) treatment planning and reporting, (7) treatment monitoring (8) catheter removal, and (9) post-treatment patient care and follow-up. The recommendations are then specified for the classical brachytherapy tumor sites following an analogue more focussed structure (patient selection, implant technique, target definition, dose and dose rate prescription, results): lip, oral mucosa, mobile tongue, floor of mouth, oropharynx, nasopharynx, paranasal sinuses.

Review of intraoperative imaging and planning techniques in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy

Techniques for permanent low dose rate seed brachytherapy for prostate cancer have evolved in the recent years with increasing use of interactive planning in the operating room (OR) during seed placement. This overcomes one of the main sources of error in the original two-stage technique in which a planning study performed at a time distant from the implant is used to define seed positions and then an attempt to reproduce this at the time of implant is required. This review addresses the various ways in which real-time dosimetry may be used. Three basic approaches are described; intraoperative planning when a plan is produced as a separate stage prior to the implant during a single OR procedure, interactive planning which incorporates stepwise modification of the treatment plan based on feedback from real-time tracking of the actual needle positions and dynamic dose calculation in which there is a continuous updating of the dosimetry using continuous feedback of the seed positions as they are implanted. The impact of these changes on dosimetric and biochemical outcome endpoints is considered demonstrating the superior results which can be obtained by closer integration of the planning processes with actual implantation and seed deposition.

External beam radiotherapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy for treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: The initial experience of the Catalan Institute of Oncology

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to report initial outcomes in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (CaP) who underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) treatment combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) as a boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS From 2002 to 2007, 114 CaP patients underwent EBRT followed by (192)I HDR-BT. The patients were classified into intermediate- (Group 1) or high- (Group 2) risk groups. The mean total EBRT dose was 60.0Gy (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59.9-60.1) at 2Gy per fraction. After a mean of 20.6 days (95% CI: 18.4-22.8), all the patients received a single-fraction 9-Gy dose of HDR-BT boost. Of the 114 patients in the study, 103 (90.4%) underwent up to 3 years of complete androgen deprivation therapy after diagnosis. RESULTS The mean followup for the entire group was 32.1 months (95% CI: 29.9-34.4). The 4-year biochemical failure-free survival rate was 97.4% and treatment was well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Preliminary biochemical control rates after EBRT plus one fraction of 9-Gy HDR-BT are encouraging. This atypical fractionation schedule is cost-effective and reduces patient discomfort and treatment-related risks. More followup is required to confirm these findings.

External beam radiotherapy plus single-fraction high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) as a boost in patients (pts) with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS From 2002 to July 2012, 377 pts with a diagnosis of intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer were treated with EBRT plus HDRB. Median patient age was 66 years (range, 41-86). Most patients (347 pts; 92%) were classified as high-risk (stage T2c-T3, or PSA>20 ng/mL, or GS ⩾ 8), with 30 patients (8%) considered intermediate risk. All patients underwent EBRT at a prescribed dose of 60.0 Gy (range, 45-70 Gy) to the prostate and seminal vesicles. A total of 120 pts (31%) received a dose of 46 Gy (45-50 Gy) to the true pelvis. All pts received a single-fraction 9 Gy (9-15 Gy) HDR boost. Most patients (353; 94%) were prescribed complete androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) rates were calculated. In the case of BRFS, patients with <26 months of follow-up (n=106) were excluded to minimize the impact of ADT. RESULTS The median follow-up for the entire sample was 50 months (range, 12-126), with 5-year actuarial OS and CSS, respectively, of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84-92) and 98% (95% CI: 97-99). The 5-year BRFS was 91% (95% CI: 87-95) in the 271 pts with ⩾ 26 months (median, 60 months) of follow-up. Late toxicity included grade 2 and 3 gastrointestinal toxicity in 17 (4.6%) and 6 pts (1.6%), respectively, as well as grades 2 and 3 genitourinary toxicity in 46 (12.2%) and 3 pts (0.8%), respectively. CONCLUSION These long-term outcomes confirm that EBRT plus a single-fraction HDRB boost provides good results in treatment-related toxicity and biochemical control. In addition to the excellent clinical results, this fractionation schedule reduces physician workload, treatment-related expenses, patient discomfort and risks associated with anaesthesia. We believe these findings support the use of single-fractionation boost techniques.

125I episcleral plaque brachytherapy in the treatment of choroidal melanoma: A single-institution experience in Spain

PURPOSE To analyze the results of episcleral plaque brachytherapy from the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS From September 1996 through December 2004, 120 patients with choroidal melanoma (median age, 59 years) were treated with iodine-125 seeds at our institution. Patients were classified according to the criteria developed by the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) group, as follows-COMS-I: 3 patients; COMS-II: 87 patients; COMS-III: 24 patients; and indeterminate COMS: 9 patients. Followup ranged from 1 year to 8.4 years. RESULTS Overall survival at 5 and 8 years was 83.9% and 73.3%, respectively. The 5- and 8-year specific survival rate was 85.7%. Local control was 88.2% and 72.7% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. The most common treatment-related toxicity was cataract formation (31.6% of cases), followed by radiation retinopathy (7.5%) and retinal detachment (4.1%). CONCLUSION The results of this institutional retrospective study confirm that the use of iodine-125 episcleral plaques to treat choroidal melanoma offers the potential for conserving a functioning eyeball. The toxicity profile is favorable and disease control is similar to other techniques.

Patterns of care for brachytherapy in Europe (PC BE) in Spain and Poland: Comparative results

Summary Background Cancer incidence and its mortality depend on a number of factors, including age, socio-economic status and geographic situation, and its incidence is growing around the world [1]. Cancer incidence in Europe is now about 4000 patients per million per year and due to the ageing population a yearly increase of 1–1.5% in cancer cases is estimated in the next two decades [2–4]. Most of the cancer treatments will include external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy. Brachytherapy has increased its use as a radical or palliative treatment and become more sophisticated with the spread of pulsed dose rate and high dose rate afterloading machines, and the use of new planning systems has additionally improved quality of treatment [5–14] Aim The aim of the present study was to compare two countries (Poland and Spain) and to report the differences in the use of brachytherapy in these countries. For this reason, several characteristics related to brachytherapy were compared. Materials/Methods The data used were collected using a website questionnaire for the year 2002 where every centre that participated in the survey could introduce, change or update the information requested. Hospitals included in the study were those that provided data on brachytherapy, because our objective was to compare the brachytherapy facilities between Poland and Spain. Results Data were available for 22 centres in Poland and 39 centres in Spain that provided brachytherapy in 2002. Spain having more centres that applied brachytherapy (1.0 centre per 1,000,000 inhabitants in Spain vs. 0.6 centre per 1,000,000 inhabitants in Poland), the average number of brachytherapy patients per centre is lower in Spain than in Poland, 137 and 382 respectively. The 5 main tumour sites treated with brachytherapy in Poland were: gynaecological (73.7%), bronchus (13.0%), breast (2.8%), prostate (2.4%) and head and neck (1.6%). In Spain they were: gynaecological (59.7%), breast (15.4%), prostate (12.8%), head and neck (4.2%) and bronchus (1.5%). Statistically significant differences were found in the number of gynaecological, bronchial and breast brachytherapy patients between the countries. Conclusions Although both countries belong to the European Union, there were observed several differences in the use of brachytherapy. We also found some differences in the brachytherapy techniques used in prostate and head and neck cancers.

Consensus on treatment of endometrium carcinoma with brachytherapy

Radiotherapy (RT) is commonly used as adjuvant treatment following hysterectomy and double oophorectomy in endometrial carcinoma. Prophylactic vaginal brachytherapy (BT) is the most common treatment in BT units. The PORTEC and GOG 99 studies have attempted to clarify the indications of BT and postoperative external RT, changing treatment standards. However, prophylactic BT regimens are very varied and there is currently no consensus on how to treat patients in terms of dose per fraction and number of fractions. Moreover, unoperated cases of endometrium are uncommon and there is limited experience in their treatment with BT. The 9th Consensus Meeting of the SEOR and SEFM Brachytherapy Group, held in Malaga on 11 March 2011, was therefore dedicated to “Brachytherapy in Endometrial Carcinoma”. This article presents the consensus on treatment of endometrial carcinoma in operated (prophylactic vaginal BT) and unoperated (endouterine BT) patients.

Anticipated Intraoperative Electron Beam Boost, External Beam Radiation Therapy, and Limb-Sparing Surgical Resection for Patients with Pediatric Soft-Tissue Sarcomas of the Extremity: A Multicentric Pooled Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes

PURPOSE To perform a joint analysis of data from 3 contributing centers within the intraoperative electron-beam radiation therapy (IOERT)-Spanish program, to determine the potential of IOERT as an anticipated boost before external beam radiation therapy in the multidisciplinary treatment of pediatric extremity soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS AND MATERIALS From June 1993 to May 2013, 62 patients (aged <21 years) with a histologic diagnosis of primary extremity soft-tissue sarcoma with absence of distant metastases, undergoing limb-sparing grossly resected surgery, external beam radiation therapy (median dose 40 Gy) and IOERT (median dose 10 Gy) were considered eligible for this analysis. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 4-235 months), 10-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival was 85%, 76%, and 81%, respectively. In multivariate analysis after adjustment for other covariates, tumor size >5 cm (P=.04) and R1 margin status (P=.04) remained significantly associated with local relapse. In regard to overall survival only margin status (P=.04) retained association on multivariate analysis. Ten patients (16%) reported severe chronic toxicity events (all grade 3). CONCLUSIONS An anticipated IOERT boost allowed for external beam radiation therapy dose reduction, with high local control and acceptably low toxicity rates. The combined radiosurgical approach needs to be tested in a prospective trial to confirm these results.

PATTERNS OF CARE FOR BRACHYTHERAPY IN EUROPE, IN SPAIN AND ITALY: COMPARATIVE RESULTS

Aims and Background The aim of the study was to compare the facilities for brachytherapy in two similar countries, as are Italy and Spain. This survey reports the differences in the use of brachytherapy in these countries. Methods The data regarding brachytherapy was obtained in 2002 by means of a specially designed web site, because Internet allowed the access to the questionnaire in an easy and safe way. In the first edition of the survey, only the countries in which more than 50% of its centers had completed the questionnaire were included. Among these countries there were Italy and Spain. Results Data was available in 127 centers in Italy and 72 centers in Spain, where 35 and 39, respectively, provided brachytherapy. Although both countries had a similar number of radiotherapy patients and the average number of radiotherapy patients per center was similar in both countries (P = 0.29), there were several differences related to brachytherapy. For instance, the mean number of radiation oncologists regularly performing brachytherapy per center was higher in Spain (P = 0.001). There were also differences in the average number of patients per center in the following tumor sites: breast (P <0.001) and gynaecological (P <0.001). In fact, the average number of patients per center who were treated with brachytherapy in these tumor sites was higher in Spain than Italy. Conclusions Although the estimated workload of the radiation oncologists, physicists and radiation technologists was higher in Spain, no statistically significant differences were found in the average number of patients per center for the following tumor sites: bronchus, head and neck, intracoronary, esophagus, prostate, rectum and skin. Several differences in the use of the brachytherapy procedures applied were also found.