Search

Simple Summary There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for adjuvant radiotherapy among European radiation oncology experts. For this, GEC-ESTRO provided 19 European radiation oncology experts on gynaecological brachytherapy for decision-making analyses. The manuscript presents patterns in decision-making among these experts and demonstrates areas of consensus/discrepancies. We also analysed dose prescription and techniques of brachytherapy. This analysis is of special value as the objective approach enabled us to obtain an unbiased description of decision-making among the specialists (the study was not aimed to create or enforce a consensus). The manuscript provides valuable insight into clinical decision-making with a high impact on treatment selection, as expected differences between experts were observed. With this manuscript we are able to visualize and quantify these. This information is relevant for interdisciplinary discussions. Abstract Background: There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We explored factors influencing decision-making for adjuvant BT in clinical routine among experienced European radiation oncologists in the field of gynaecological radiotherapy (RT). We also investigated the dose and technique of BT. Methods: Nineteen European experts for gynaecological BT selected by the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology provided their decision criteria and technique for postoperative RT in EC. The decision criteria were captured and converted into decision trees, and consensus and dissent were evaluated based on the objective consensus methodology. Results: The decision criteria used by the experts were tumour extension, grading, nodal status, lymphovascular invasion, and cervical stroma/vaginal invasion (yes/no). No expert recommended adjuvant BT for pT1a G1-2 EC without substantial LVSI. Eighty-four percent of experts recommended BT for pT1a G3 EC without substantial LVSI. Up to 74% of experts used adjuvant BT for pT1b LVSI-negative and pT2 G1–2 LVSI-negative disease. For 74–84% of experts, EBRT + BT was the treatment of choice for nodal-positive pT2 disease and for pT3 EC with cervical/vaginal invasion. For all other tumour stages, there was no clear consensus for adjuvant treatment. Four experts already used molecular markers for decision-making. Sixty-five percent of experts recommended fractionation regimens of 3 × 7 Gy or 4 × 5 Gy for BT as monotherapy and 2 × 5 Gy for combination with EBRT. The most commonly used applicator for BT was a vaginal cylinder; 82% recommended image-guided BT. Conclusions: There was a clear trend towards adjuvant BT for stage IA G3, stage IB, and stage II G1–2 LVSI-negative EC. Likewise, there was a non-uniform pattern for BT dose prescription but a clear trend towards 3D image-based BT. Finally, molecular characteristics were already used in daily decision-making by some experts under the pretext that upcoming trials will bring more clarity to this topic.

Simple Summary There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for adjuvant radiotherapy among European radiation oncology experts. For this, GEC-ESTRO provided 19 European radiation oncology experts on gynaecological brachytherapy for decision-making analyses. The manuscript presents patterns in decision-making among these experts and demonstrates areas of consensus/discrepancies. We also analysed dose prescription and techniques of brachytherapy. This analysis is of special value as the objective approach enabled us to obtain an unbiased description of decision-making among the specialists (the study was not aimed to create or enforce a consensus). The manuscript provides valuable insight into clinical decision-making with a high impact on treatment selection, as expected differences between experts were observed. With this manuscript we are able to visualize and quantify these. This information is relevant for interdisciplinary discussions. Background: There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We explored factors influencing decision-making for adjuvant BT in clinical routine among experienced European radiation oncologists in the field of gynaecological radiotherapy (RT). We also investigated the dose and technique of BT. Methods: Nineteen European experts for gynaecological BT selected by the Groupe Europeen de Curietherapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology provided their decision criteria and technique for postoperative RT in EC. The decision criteria were captured and converted into decision trees, and consensus and dissent were evaluated based on the objective consensus methodology. Results: The decision criteria used by the experts were tumour extension, grading, nodal status, lymphovascular invasion, and cervical stroma/vaginal invasion (yes/no). No expert recommended adjuvant BT for pT1a G1-2 EC without substantial LVSI. Eighty-four percent of experts recommended BT for pT1a G3 EC without substantial LVSI. Up to 74% of experts used adjuvant BT for pT1b LVSI-negative and pT2 G1-2 LVSI-negative disease. For 74-84% of experts, EBRT + BT was the treatment of choice for nodal-positive pT2 disease and for pT3 EC with cervical/vaginal invasion. For all other tumour stages, there was no clear consensus for adjuvant treatment. Four experts already used molecular markers for decision-making. Sixty-five percent of experts recommended fractionation regimens of 3 x 7 Gy or 4 x 5 Gy for BT as monotherapy and 2 x 5 Gy for combination with EBRT. The most commonly used applicator for BT was a vaginal cylinder; 82% recommended image-guided BT. Conclusions: There was a clear trend towards adjuvant BT for stage IA G3, stage IB, and stage II G1-2 LVSI-negative EC. Likewise, there was a non-uniform pattern for BT dose prescription but a clear trend towards 3D image-based BT. Finally, molecular characteristics were already used in daily decision-making by some experts under the pretext that upcoming trials will bring more clarity to this topic.

Vulvar carcinoma is a rare disease that accounts for 3–5% of all gynecologic malignancies. Breast represents an unusual site of metastasis and only a few cases are reported. We describe the first case of bilateral metastatic breast carcinoma of vulvar origin, at an 80-year-old female patient. Six months after treatment of her primary disease, she presented with bilateral metastatic squamous cell breast carcinoma. Diagnosis was based on clinical, radiological, and histological facts. Breast although rare is another potential site of metastasis in vulvar cancer and thus mammary gland examination should be considered in the follow-up of these patients. Differential diagnosis between primary and metastatic lesions is of utmost importance for appropriate management.

The GYN GEC-ESTRO working group issued three parts of recommendations and highlighted the pivotal role of MRI for the successful implementation of 3D image-based cervical cancer brachytherapy (BT). The main advantage of MRI as an imaging modality is its superior soft tissue depiction quality. To exploit the full potential of MRI for the better ability of the radiation oncologist to make the appropriate choice for the BT application technique and to accurately define the target volumes and the organs at risk, certain MR imaging criteria have to be fulfilled. Technical requirements, patient preparation, as well as image acquisition protocols have to be tailored to the needs of 3D image-based BT. The present recommendation is focused on the general principles of MR imaging for 3D image-based BT.Methods and parameters have been developed and progressively validated from clinical experience from different institutions (IGR, Universities of Vienna, Leuven, Aarhus and Ljubljana) and successfully applied during expert meetings, contouring workshops, as well as within clinical and interobserver studies.It is useful to perform pelvic MRI scanning prior to radiotherapy (“Pre-RT-MRI examination”) and at the time of BT (“BT MRI examination”) with one MR imager. Both low and high-field imagers, as well as both open and close magnet configurations conform to the requirements of 3D image-based cervical cancer BT. Multiplanar (transversal, sagittal, coronal and oblique image orientation) T2-weighted images obtained with pelvic surface coils are considered as the golden standard for visualisation of the tumour and the critical organs. The use of complementary MRI sequences (e.g. contrast-enhanced T1-weighted or 3D isotropic MRI sequences) is optional. Patient preparation has to be adapted to the needs of BT intervention and MR imaging. It is recommended to visualise and interpret the MR images on dedicated DICOM-viewer workstations, which should also assist the contouring procedure. Choice of imaging parameters and BT equipment is made after taking into account aspects of interaction between imaging and applicator reconstruction, as well as those between imaging, geometry and dose calculation.In a prospective clinical context, to implement 3D image-based cervical cancer brachytherapy and to take advantage of its full potential, it is essential to successfully meet the MR imaging criteria described in the present recommendations of the GYN GEC-ESTRO working group.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare two inverse planning algorithms for cervical cancer brachytherapy and a conventional manual treatment planning according to the MUW (Medical University of Vienna) protocol. Material and methods For 20 patients, manually optimized, and, inversely optimized treatment plans with Hybrid Inverse treatment Planning and Optimization (HIPO) and with Inverse Planning Simulated Annealing (IPSA) were created. Dosimetric parameters, absolute volumes of normal tissue receiving reference doses, absolute loading times of tandem, ring and interstitial needles, Paddick and COIN conformity indices were evaluated. Results HIPO was able to achieve a similar dose distribution to manual planning with the restriction of high dose regions. It reduced the loading time of needles and the overall treatment time. The values of both conformity indices were the lowest. IPSA was able to achieve acceptable dosimetric results. However, it overloaded the needles. This resulted in high dose regions located in the normal tissue. The Paddick index for the volume of two times prescribed dose was outstandingly low. Conclusions HIPO can produce clinically acceptable treatment plans with the elimination of high dose regions in normal tissue. Compared to IPSA, it is an inverse optimization method which takes into account current clinical experience gained from manual treatment planning.