brachytherapy boost
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

529
(FIVE YEARS 122)

H-INDEX

30
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2022 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 377-382
Author(s):  
Jonathan Wallach ◽  
Irini Youssef ◽  
Andrea Leaf ◽  
David Schwartz

A 79-year-old HIV-negative Caucasian man with a medical history of smoking 20 pack-years (quit 40 years prior), early-stage non-small cell lung cancer status post-lobectomy 13 years earlier at an outside hospital without evidence of recurrence, and benign prostatic hypertrophy was diagnosed with synchronous very high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and early-stage anal basaloid squamous cell carcinoma. He proceeded to undergo concurrent treatment for these tumors, consisting of androgen deprivation therapy, external beam radiation therapy, and a brachytherapy boost for the prostate adenocarcinoma; for the anal carcinoma, he was treated with definitive chemoradiation. Over 3.5 years since the completion of radiotherapy, he remains in clinical and biochemical remission.


2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideya Yamazaki ◽  
Gen Suzuki ◽  
Norihiro Aibe ◽  
Daisuke Shimizu ◽  
Takuya Kimoto ◽  
...  

AbstractAs several recent researches focus on the importance of Gleason 9–10, we examine the role of radiotherapy dose escalation in those patients. We analyzed 476 patients with Gleason score 9–10 prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Of them, 127 patients were treated with conventional-dose external beam radiotherapy (Conv RT) and 349 patients were treated with high-dose radiotherapy (HDRT; 249 patients received high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost + external beam radiotherapy [HDR boost] and 100 patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT]). We compared these treatment groups using multi-institutional retrospective data. The patients had a median follow-up period of 66.3 months. HDRT showed superior biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) rate (85.2%; HDR boost 84.7% and IMRT 86.6%) to Conv RT (71.1%, p < 0.0001) at 5 years, with a hazard ratio of 0.448. There were borderline difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM; 4.3% and 2.75%, p = 0.0581), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS; 94.4% and 89.6%, p = 0.0916) rates at 5-years between Conv RT and HDRT group. Dose escalated radiotherapy showed better bDFS, borderline improvement in PCSM, and equivocal outcome in DMFS in with clinically localized Gleason 9–10 prostate cancer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Tamihardja ◽  
Paul Lutyj ◽  
Johannes Kraft ◽  
Dominik Lisowski ◽  
Stefan Weick ◽  
...  

PurposeEvaluation of clinical outcome of two-weekly high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer.Methods338 patients with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive EBRT followed by a two-weekly high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT boost) in the period of 2002 to 2019 were analyzed. EBRT, delivered in 46 Gy (DMean) in conventional fractionation, was followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D90%) two and four weeks after EBRT. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was added in 176 (52.1%) patients. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was evaluated utilizing the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix definition.ResultsMedian follow-up was 101.8 months. 15 (4.4%)/115 (34.0%)/208 (61.5%) patients had low-/intermediate-/high-risk cancer according to the D`Amico risk classification. Estimated 5-year and 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 84.7% and 75.9% for all patients. The estimated 5-year bRFS was 93.3%, 93.4% and 79.5% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease, respectively. The estimated 10-year freedom from distant metastasis (FFM) and overall survival (OS) rates were 86.5% and 70.0%. Cumulative 5-year late GU toxicity and late GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was observed in 19.3% and 5.0% of the patients, respectively. Cumulative 5-year late grade 3 GU/GI toxicity occurred in 3.6%/0.3%.ConclusionsTwo-weekly HDR-BT boost after EBRT for localized prostate cancer showed an excellent toxicity profile with low GU/GI toxicity rates and effective long-term biochemical control.


2021 ◽  
Vol 163 ◽  
pp. S6
Author(s):  
Marie-Michèle Beaudry ◽  
Damien Carignan ◽  
André-Guy Martin ◽  
William Foster ◽  
Eric Vigneault ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae Hoon Lee ◽  
Changhoon Song ◽  
In Ah Kim ◽  
Jae-Sung Kim ◽  
Yong Beom Kim ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to analyze the treatment efficacy and safety of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) boost for cervical cancer patients not amenable to brachytherapy. Methods A retrospective review of the medical records from single institution of 25 eligible patients was performed. The patients underwent pelvic radiotherapy (RT) in 25 or 28 fractions with a median dose of 45 Gy (range 44–50.4 Gy). SABR boost was delivered after pelvic RT, with a median dose of 25 Gy (range 20–33 Gy), and a median fraction number of 5 (range 4–6). 21 patients with a follow-up period of more than one year were included in the toxicity analysis, and hematuria and hematochezia that occurred later than 3 months after the RT were graded. Results The median follow-up period after radiotherapy was 2.85 years (range 0.33–6.60). The 3-year local control, locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 80.9%, 75.8%, 40.9%, and 77.1%, respectively. 5 patients experienced grade 3 toxicity (3 genitourinary, 3 gastrointestinal), and no grade 4–5 toxicity was reported. Univariate analysis showed that cumulative D2cc in equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) of rectum was marginally predictive for any grade of hematochezia (P = 0.051). Cumulative D2cc EQD2 of bladder was not predictive for hematuria. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the optimal threshold of cumulative rectal D2cc EQD2 was 81.2 Gy for any grade of hematochezia. Conclusion SABR boost for cervical cancer was effective and tolerable. Although it cannot substitute brachytherapy, it can be a treatment option when brachytherapy is not possible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document