I. Henriquez

Treatment of keloids by high-dose-rate brachytherapy: A seven-year study.

PURPOSE To analyze the results obtained in a prospective group of patients with keloid scars treated by high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy with or without surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS One hundred and sixty-nine patients with keloid scars were treated with HDR brachytherapy between December 1991 and December 1998. One hundred and thirty-four patients were females, and 35 were males. The distribution of keloid scars was as follows: face, 77; trunk, 73; and extremities, 19. The mean length was 4.2 cm (range 2-22 cm), and the mean width 1.8 cm (range 1.0-2.8 cm). In 147 patients keloid tissues were removed before HDR brachytherapy treatment, and in 22 HDR brachytherapy was used as definitive treatment. In patients who underwent prior surgery, a flexible plastic tube was put in place during the surgical procedure. Bottoms were used to fix the plastic tubes, and the surgical wound was repaired by absorbable suture. HDR brachytherapy was administered within 30-60 min of surgery. A total dose of 12 Gy (at 1 cm from the center of the catheter) was given in four fractions of 300 cGy in 24 h (at 09.00 am, 15.00 pm, 21.00 pm, and 09.00 am next day). Treatment was optimized using standard geometric optimization. In patients who did not undergo surgery, standard brachytherapy was performed, and plastic tubes were placed through the skin to cover the whole scar. Local anesthesia was used in all procedures. In these patients a total dose of 18 Gy was given in 6 fractions of 300 cGy in one and a half days (at 9.00 am, 3.00 pm, and 9.00 pm; and at 9.00 am, 3.00 pm, and 9.00 pm next day). No further treatment was given to any patient. Patients were seen in follow-up visits every 3 months during the first year, every 6 months in the second year, and yearly thereafter. No patient was lost to follow-up. Particular attention was paid to keloid recurrence, late skin effects, and cosmetic results. RESULTS All patients completed the treatment. After a follow-up of seven years, 8 patients (4.7%) had keloid recurrences. Five of these had undergone prior surgery (local failure rate 3.4%), and 3 had received only HDR brachytherapy (local persistence rate 13.6%). Cosmetic results were considered to be good or excellent in 130/147 patients treated with prior surgery and in 17/22 patients without surgery. Skin pigmentation changes were observed in 10 patients, and telangiectasias in 12 patients. No late effects such as skin atrophy or skin fibrosis were observed during the 7 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS HDR brachytherapy is an effective treatment for keloid scars. It is well tolerated and does not present significant side effects. The brachytherapy results were more successful in patients who underwent previous surgical excision of keloid scar than in patients without surgery. We favor HDR brachytherapy rather than superficial X-rays or low energy electron beams in keloid scars, because HDR provides a better selective deposit of radiation in tissues and a lower degree of normal tissue irradiation. Other advantages of high-dose-rate brachytherapy over low-dose-rate brachytherapy are its low cost, the fact that it can be performed on an outpatient basis, its excellent radiation protection, and the better dose distribution obtained. From the clinical perspective, the technique provides a high local control rate without significant sequelae or complications.

Exeresis and Brachytherapy as Salvage Treatment for Local Recurrence After Conservative Treatment for Breast Cancer: Results of a Ten-Year Pilot Study

PURPOSE To analyze the long-term results of a pilot study assessing excision and brachytherapy as salvage treatment for local recurrence after conservative treatment of breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between December 1990 and March 2001, 36 patients with breast-only recurrence less than 3 cm in diameter after conservative treatment for Stage I or II breast carcinoma were treated with local excision followed by high-dose rate brachytherapy implants (30 Gy in 12 fractions over a period of 5 days). No patient was lost to follow-up. Special attention was paid to local, regional, or distant recurrences; survival; cosmesis; and early and late side effects. RESULTS All patients completed treatment. During follow-up (range, 1-13 years), 8 patients presented metastases (2 regional and 6 distant) as their first site of failure, 1 had a differed local recurrence, and 1 died of the disease. Actuarial results at 10 years were as follows: local control, 89.4%; disease-free survival, 64.4%; and survival, 96.7%. Cosmetic results were satisfactory in 90.4%. No patient had Grade 3 or 4 early or late complications. Of the 11 patients followed up for at least 10 years, all but 1 still had their breast in place at the 10-year stage. CONCLUSIONS High-dose rate brachytherapy is a safe, effective treatment for small-size, low-risk local recurrence after local excision in conservatively treated patients. The dose of 30 Gy of high-dose rate brachytherapy (12 fractions over a period of 5 days twice daily) was well tolerated. The excellent results support the use of breast preservation as salvage treatment in selected patients with local recurrence after conservative treatment for breast cancer.

Keloids and Hypertrophie Scars

Abnormal skin scarring was first described in the Smith papyrus between 2500 and 3000 BC [7]. In 1817, Alibert proposed the word “cheloide” (keloid) to differentiate these lesions from malignant neoplasms [2]. Today, keloids and hypertrophie scars are recognized as uncontrolled proliferations of fibrous tissue after injury or trauma to the skin [15]. However, meanwhile hypertrophie scars are confined to the extent of the original wound; in contrast, keloids invade the surrounding skin [15].

Consensus statement on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk prostate cancer patients on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG

PurposeProstate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent malignancy in men and the second cause of mortality in industrialized countries.MethodsBased on Spanish Register of PCa, the incidence of high-risk PCa is 29%, approximately. In spite of the evidence-based beneficial effect of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk PCa, these patients (pts) are still a therapeutic challenge for all specialists involved, in part due to the absence of comparative studies to establish which of the present disposable treatments offer better results.ResultsNowadays, high-risk PCa definition is not well consensual through the published oncology guides. Clinical stage, tumour grade, and number of risk factors are relevant to be considered on PCa prognosis. However, these factors are susceptible to change depending on when surgical or radiation therapy is considered to be the treatment of choice. Other factors, such as reference pathologist, different diagnosis biopsy schedules, surgical or radiotherapy techniques, adjuvant treatments, biochemical failures, and follow-up, make it difficult to compare the results between different therapeutic options.ConclusionsThis article reviews important issues concerning high-risk PCa. URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies have reached a consensus addressing a practical recommendation on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk PCa.

Consensus on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer on behalf of the Urological Tumours Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology

BackgroundThe knowledge in the field of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is developing rapidly, with emerging new therapies and advances in imaging. Nonetheless, in multiple areas there is still a lack of or very limited evidence, and clear guidance from clinicians regarding optimal strategy is required.MethodsA modified Delphi method, with 116 relevant questions divided into 7 different CRPC management topics, was used to develop a consensus statement by the URONCOR group.ResultsA strong consensus or unanimity was reached on 93% of the proposed questions. The seven topics addressed were: CRPC definition, symptomatic patients, diagnosis of metastasis, CRPC progression, M0 management, M1 management and sequencing therapy, and treatment monitoring.ConclusionsThe recommendations based on the radiation oncology experts’ opinions are intended to provide cancer specialists with expert guidance and to standardise CRPC patient management in Spain, facilitating decision-making in different clinically relevant issues regarding CRPC patients.