Brachytherapy · 2018 · 70 citations · 8 references
MedicineOncologyRadiation OncologyGynecologic OncologyGynecologic Radiation OncologyTreatment PlanningBrachytherapy For Gynecologic MalignanciesBrachytherapy PhysicsCervical CancerExternal Beam RadiotherapyGynecologic Cancer RadiotherapyRadiation TherapyCervical Cancer BrachytherapyCervical Cancer RadiotherapyHybrid Interstitial BrachytherapyHybrid Intracavitary BrachytherapyMultimodality Treatment Integration
PurposeTo report on first-in-human experience and the initial clinical results using the hybrid applicator Venezia (Elekta, Sweden) in the treatment of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.Material and MethodsBetween March, 2017, and February, 2018, a total of 40 fractions were performed on patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation and brachytherapy (BT) for cervical cancer. A plan comparison was conducted evaluating the hybrid applicator with the clinically used intracavitary and interstitial (IC/IS) BT against a standard plan prescribed to Point A and a manually optimized plan using only intracavitary (IC) BT. Overall 80 treatment plans were retrospectively generated.ResultsThe clinical use of the hybrid applicator system proved to be feasible in all 40 treatment fractions. The applicator consists of the IC tandem and two lunar-shaped ovoids forming a ring that serves as a template for defined parallel and oblique (12°) needle insertion. MRI preplanning was performed the day before the implant. One to six needles were placed per fraction, and overall a total of 66 needles were used. No complications such as bleeding or organ penetration occurred due to needle placement. Significant differences in IC/IS, Point A, and IC plans were derived for dose application to the target volume; D90 high-risk clinical target volume was 90.7 vs. 88.1 vs. 80.8 Gy (p = 0.008). Likewise, sparing of organs at risk differed significantly for bladder D2cc 79.4 vs. 91.8 vs. 79.2 Gy (p = 0.03) and rectum D2cc 58.7 vs. 67.3 vs. 62.5 Gy (p = 0.03).ConclusionThe clinical application of the Venezia applicator is feasible and allows significantly improved dose coverage while at the same time sufficiently sparing organs at risk.
8
Richard Pötter, Christine Haie-Méder, Erik Van Limbergen et al. · Radiotherapy and Oncology · 2006 · 1.6K citations
Medicine, Gynecology, Oncology +17
Lars Fokdal, Alina Sturdza, R. Mazeron et al. · Radiotherapy and Oncology · 2016 · 320 citations · Full text
Medicine, Gynecology, Oncology +16
R. Mazeron, Lars Fokdal, Kathrin Kirchheiner et al. · Radiotherapy and Oncology · 2016 · 266 citations · Full text
Johannes Dimopoulos, Primož Petrič, Petra Georg et al. · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2006 · 239 citations
C. Nomden, Astrid A.C. de Leeuw, Marinus A. Moerland et al. · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2011 · 151 citations
Medicine, Gynecology, Oncology +14