Open Access

BACKGROUND: To report the clinical outcome of high dose rate brachytherapy as sole treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. METHODS: Between March 2004 and January 2008, a total of 351 consecutive patients with clinically localised prostate cancer were treated with transrectal ultrasound guided high dose rate brachytherapy. The prescribed dose was 38.0 Gy in four fractions (two implants of two fractions each of 9.5 Gy with an interval of 14 days between the implants) delivered to an intraoperative transrectal ultrasound real-time defined planning treatment volume. Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus and toxicity evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 59.3 months. The 36 and 60 month biochemical control and metastasis-free survival rates were respectively 98%, 94% and 99%, 98%. Toxicity was scored per event with 4.8% acute Grade 3 genitourinary and no acute Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. Late Grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were respectively 3.4% and 1.4%. No instances of Grade 4 or greater acute or late adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm high dose rate brachytherapy as safe and effective monotherapy for clinically organ-confined prostate cancer.

Introduction: To evaluate the oncological outcome of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BRT) as monotherapy for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCA). Material and Methods: Between January 2002 and February 2004, 141 consecutive patients with clinically localised PCA were treated with HDR-BRT monotherapy. The cohort comprised 103 (73%) low-, 32 (22.7%) intermediate- and 6 (4.3%) high risk patients according to D’Amico classification or 104 (73.8%) low-, 24 (17.0%) intermediate favourable-, 12 (8.5%) intermediate unfavourable- and one (0.7%) very high risk patient according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) one. Patients received four fractions of 9.5 Gy delivered within a single implant up to a total physical dose of 38 Gy. Catheter-implantation was transrectal ultrasound-based whereas treatment planning CT-based. Thirty-three patients (23.4%) received ADT neoadjuvantly and continued concurrently with BRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus Criteria and genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Results: Median age at treatment and median follow-up time was 67.2 and 15.2 years, respectively. Twenty-three (16.3%) patients experienced a biochemical relapse and 5 (3.5%) developed distant metastases, with only one patient dying of PCA. The BRFS was 85.1% at 15 years and 78.7% at 18 years. The corresponding overall survival, metastases-free survival, and prostate cancer specific mortality at 15- and 18-years was 73.9%/59.1%, 98.3%/90.6%, and 100%/98.5% respectively. Late grade 3 GI and GU toxicity was 4.2% and 5.6% respectively. Erectile dysfunction grade 3 was reported by 27 (19%) patients. From the prognostic factors evaluated, tumor stage (≤T2b compared to ≥T2c) along with the risk group (low-intermediate vs. high) when using the D’Amico classification but not when the NCCN one was taken into account, correlated significantly with BRFS. Conclusion: Our long-term results confirm HDR-BRT to be a safe and effective monotherapeutic treatment modality for low- and intermediate risk PCA.

Purpose: Dosimetric treatment planning evaluations concerning patient-adapted moulds for iridium-192 highdose-rate brachytherapy are presented in this report. Material and methods: Six patients with perinasal skin tumors were treated with individual moulds made of biocompatible epithetic materials with embedded plastic applicators. Treatment plans were optimized with regard to clinical requirements, and dose was calculated using standard water-based TG-43 formalism. In addition, retrospective material-dependent collapsed cone calculations according to TG-186 protocol were evaluated to quantify the limitations of TG-43 protocol for this superficial brachytherapy technique. Results: The dose-volume parameters D90, V100, and V150 of the planning target volumes (PTVs) for TG-43 dose calculations yielded 92.2% to 102.5%, 75.1% to 93.1%, and 7.4% to 41.7% of the prescribed dose, respectively. The maximum overall dose to the ipsilateral eyeball as the most affected organ at risk (OAR) varied between 8.9 and 36.4 Gy. TG-186 calculations with Hounsfield unit-based density allocation resulted in down by –6.4%, –16.7%, and –30.0% lower average D90, V100, and V150 of the PTVs, with respect to the TG-43 data. The corresponding calculated OAR doses were also lower. The model-based TG-186 dose calculations have considered reduced backscattering due to environmental air as well as the dose-to-medium influenced by the mould materials and tissue composition. The median PTV dose was robust within 0.5% for simulated variations of mould material densities in the range of 1.0 g/cm³ to 1.26 g/cm³ up to 7 mm total mould thickness. Conclusions: HDR contact BT with individual moulds is a safe modality for routine treatment of perinasal skin tumors. The technique provides good target coverage and OARs’ protection, while being robust against small variances in mould material density. Model-based dose calculations (TG-186) should complement TG-43 dose calculations for verification purpose and quality improvement.

Purpose: Tongue edema is a potential cause of treatment target underdosage in high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR-ISBT) of mobile tongue cancer. To prevent such edema-associated alteration of dosimetry, we developed a special silicon device. In this report we communicate our initial experience with two mobile tongue cancer patients whom we treated using this new device. Material and methods: The device consists of silicone tubes with a fixed width and scalable length depending on tongue size. These tubes are lined and fixed like a palisade, allowing the device to be used also as a template. The device is placed next to the lateral border of the tongue and on the floor of the mouth. In addition, a vinyl template can be placed on the dorsal tongue surface with both devices combined for implantation guidance. Between June and August 2012, two patients with locally confined tongue cancer were treated. Results: Between June and August 2012, two mobile tongue cancer patients classified as cT2N0M0 were treated with HDR-ISBT using the silicone device. They underwent ISBT as monotherapy with fractional doses of 6.0 Gy up to a total physical dose of 54.0 Gy. The D90 (CTV) values of both patients were 6.3 Gy and 6.6 Gy and the D2cc (mandible) values were 3.4 Gy and 2.6 Gy, respectively. At present, both patients remain without local disease recurrence at 60 and 56 months after ISBT, respectively. Conclusions: The described silicone device has the potential to prevent underdosage to the treatment target related to tongue edema. It has been shown to be safe and easy to implement.

Purpose: To review the role of radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of renal cell cancer (RCC) in the curative and palliative setting. Content: Details related to the clinical outcomes of primary, preoperative, postoperative and palliative RT are discussed, along with a presentation of the established role of surgery and systemic therapy. An overview of data derived from mono- and multi-institutional trials is provided. Conclusion: Radiotherapy has been shown to provide good symptom palliation and local control in RCC depending on the dose that can be delivered. There is emerging data suggesting that with the use of high-precision RT methods the indication spectrum of RT can be exploited covering different clinical situations particularly for unresectable local recurrences and oligometastatic disease.