Search

Abstract Purpose This study retrospectively compared the clinical and toxicity outcomes for the cervical cancer of the MRI-guided two adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) fractions versus one IGABT fraction in one application. Methods One hundred and twenty patients with cervical cancer received external beam radiotherapy combined with or without concurrent chemotherapy, which was followed by the IGABT. The IGABT in 63 patients had one IGABT in each application (Arm 1), while in the other 57 patients, at least one treatment was two continuous IGABT every other day in one application (Arm 2). Clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), progression free survival (PFS), local control (LC) were analyzed. Brachytherapy-related toxicities were evaluated, which included pain, dizziness, nausea/vomiting, fever/infection, blood loss during the removal of applicator and needles, the deep venous thrombosis, and other acute toxicities. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC-AE 5.0) was used to evaluate the incidence and severity of toxicities of the urinary system, lower digestive system, and reproduction system. Kaplan–Meier and the Log-rank test were used to analyze the clinical outcomes. Results The median follow-up time of the patients in Arm 1 and Arm 2 was 23.5 and 12.0 months, respectively. The overall treatment time was significantly shorter in Arm 2 than Arm 1 (60 vs. 64 d; P = 0.017). The OS, CSS, PFS, and LC in Arm1 and Arm 2 was 77.8% vs. 86.0% (P = 0.632), 77.8% vs. 87.7% (P = 0.821), 68.3% vs. 70.2% (P = 0.207), and 92.1% vs. 94.7% (P = 0.583), respectively. The highest NRS of the pain during brachytherapy waiting period (2.22 ± 1.84 vs. 3.02 ± 1.65; P

Purpose: This study retrospectively compared the clinical and toxicity outcomes for the cervical cancer of the MRI-guided two adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) fractions versus one IGABT fraction in one application. Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with cervical cancer received external beam radiotherapy combined with or without concurrent chemotherapy, which was followed by the IGABT. The IGABT in 63 patients had one IGABT in each application (Arm 1), while in the other 57 patients, at least one treatment was two continuous IGABT every other day in one application (Arm 2). Clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), progression free survival (PFS), local control (LC) were analyzed. Brachytherapy-related toxicities were evaluated, which included pain, dizziness, nausea/vomiting, fever/infection, blood loss during the removal of applicator and needles, the deep venous thrombosis, and other acute toxicities. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC-AE 5.0) was used to evaluate the incidence and severity of toxicities of the urinary system, lower digestive system, and reproduction system. Kaplan–Meier and the Log-rank test were used to analyze the clinical outcomes. Results: The median follow-up time of the patients in Arm 1 and Arm 2 was 23.5 and 12.0 months, respectively. The overall treatment time was significantly shorter in Arm 2 than Arm 1 (60 vs. 64 d; P = 0.017). The OS, CSS, PFS, and LC in Arm1 and Arm 2 was 77.8% vs. 86.0% (P = 0.632), 77.8% vs. 87.7% (P = 0.821), 68.3% vs. 70.2% (P = 0.207), and 92.1% vs. 94.7% (P = 0.583), respectively. The highest NRS of the pain during brachytherapy waiting period (2.22 ± 1.84 vs. 3.02 ± 1.65; P < 0.001) and at the time of the removal of the applicator (4.69 ± 1.49 vs. 5.30 ± 1.18; P < 0.001) in the patients who received one hybrid intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy (IC/ISBT) in one application and two continuous IC/ISBT every other day in one application were significantly different. So far four patients with grade 3 late toxicities have been reported. Conclusions: The findings of this study demonstrated that the two continuous IGABT every other day in one application is a logistically applicable, safe, and effective treatment strategy that could shorten the overall treatment time and reduce the medical cost, comparing with the one IGABT in one application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence rate of breast cancer is rising rapidly in Hong Kong. Lymphedema is a serious long-term complication of breast cancer surgery and radiation therapy. Objective: The objectives of this study were to evaluate risk factors associated with the development of lymphedema for patients with breast cancer who have had an axillary lymph node dissection and to explore potential factors associated with moderate to severe lymphedema. Methods: This was a matched case-control study of 202 women undergoing a unilateral axillary dissection for breast cancer, consisting of 101 cases with lymphedema and 101 controls who matched cases in terms of surgery date, axillary radiotherapy, and cancer stage. Arm circumferences were measured to determine presence and severity of lymphedema. Potential risk factors were collected by using clinical data and a questionnaire. A multiple logistic regression was used to obtain the adjusted odds ratios for potential risk factors for developing lymphedema. Exploratory analysis was also performed to identify factors associated with the development of moderate to severe lymphedema. Results: Adjusted odds ratios for the development of lymphedema were 3.80 (95% confidence interval [Cl] = 1.84-7.87) for previous inflammation-infection and 1.06 (95% Cl = 1.02-1.10) for an increase of 1 year of age at axillary dissection. On exploratory analysis, adjusted odds ratios for moderate to severe degree of lymphedema were 4.53 (95% Cl = 2.16-9.52) for previous inflammation-infection, 2.94 (95% Cl = 1.44-6.03) for operation on dominant arm, 1.11 (95% Cl - 1.01-1.22) for an increase of 1 kg/m² in body mass index (BMI) at recruitment, and 1.05 (95% Cl = 1.01-1.10) for an increase of 1 year of age at recruitment time. Discussion: Previous inflammation-infection and advanced age at axillary dissection are risk factors associated with the initiation of lymphedema. Previous inflammation-infection, operation on the side of the dominant hand, obesity, and aging are potential risk factors associated with the aggravation of lymphedema. Greater BMI is still a risk factor for lymphedema progression even in a lower BMI population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]