Search

Brachytherapy is an effective treatment in the curative management of prostate and gynaecological cancers. With advances in technology, brachytherapy has increased in complexity in recent years. Human error, equipment malfunction, patient organ motion and radioactive source displacement can result in substantial deviation of delivered dose from planned dose. To limit adverse clinical outcomes, adequate steps to improve the robustness of pathway processes, ensure the implementation of appropriate treatment margins and confirm the delivered dose must be considered. In vivo dosimetry is one such method of dose validation which, if implemented appropriately within clinical practice, is an attractive technique for reducing dosimetric uncertainties and identifying potential errors. This review aims to describe the dosimetric uncertainties and potential errors associated with brachytherapy, the potential for in vivo dosimetry in adaptive brachytherapy as a key method of dose validation, and the clinical considerations and future directions of in vivo dosimetry. Advances in knowledge: This paper describes the potential role for in vivo dosimetry in the reduction of uncertainties in pelvic brachytherapy, the pertinent factors for consideration in clinical practice, and the future potential for in vivo dosimetry in the personalisation of brachytherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been postulated that the combination of intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy (IC/IS) is effective and safe for large and irregularly shaped uterine cervical cancer patients. However, due to its invasiveness compared to conventional intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT), it has to be said that the implementation speed of IC/IS is slow. Until now, there have been no guidelines for required equipment, human resources, and procedural guide focusing solely on IC/IS. The purpose of this guideline is to provide radiation oncologists and medical physicists who wish to start IC/IS with practical and comprehensive guidance for a safe IC/IS introduction and to help accelerate the spread of the utilization of IC/IS nationwide. This is the English translation of the Japanese IC/IS Guidelines, and it was created in an effort to share the Japanese approach to the management of locally advanced uterine cervical cancer worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In our previous prospective trial on accelerated hypofractionated concomitant radiochemotherapy (AHRT-CHT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the incidence of grade ≥3 acute esophageal toxicity (AET) was similar to that reported for conventionally fractionated concomitant radiochemotherapy (CFRT-CHT), but its duration was prolonged. Thus, we aimed to compare the duration of grade ≥3 AET between AHRT-CHT and CFRT-CHT. Clinical data of 76 NSCLC patients treated with CFRT-CHT (60–66 Gy/2 Gy) during 2015–2020 were retrospectively compared with the data of 92 patients treated with AHRT-CHT (58.8 Gy/2.8 Gy) in the prospective trial. The maximum grade of AET, incidence, and duration of grade ≥3 AET were the end points. Univariate and multivariate analyses were applied to correlate clinical and treatment variables with these end points. Neither the maximum grade of AET (p = 0.71), nor the incidence of grade ≥3 AET (p = 0.87) differed between the two groups. The number of CHT cycles delivered (2 vs 1, p = 0.005) and higher esophagus mean BED (p = 0.009) were significant predictors for a higher maximum grade of AET; older age was a significant predictor for higher incidence of grade ≥3 AET (p = 0.03). The median duration of grade ≥3 AET in AHRT-CHT and CFRT-CHT group was 30 days (range 5-150) vs 7 days (range 3–20), respectively, p = 0.0005. In multivariate analysis, only the AHRT-CHT schedule (p=0.003) was a significant predictor for a longer duration of grade ≥3 AET. Despite similar incidence of grade ≥3 AET, its duration is significantly prolonged in NSCLC patients treated with AHRT-CHT compared to CFRT-CHT. Reporting only the rate of grade ≥3 AET in clinical trials may underestimate the real extent of the esophageal toxicity; its duration should also be routinely reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]