RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Lip carcinoma represents one of the most common types of head and neck cancer. Brachytherapy is a highly effective therapeutic option for all stages of lip cancers. We report our experience of pulsed dose rate brachytherapy (PDR) as treatment of lip carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: this retrospective single center study included all consecutive patients treated for a lip PDR brachytherapy in our institution from 2010 to 2019. The toxicities and outcomes of the patients were reported, and a retrospective quality of life assessment was conducted by phone interviews (FACT H&N). RESULTS: From October 2010 to December 2019, 38 patients were treated in our institution for a lip carcinoma by PDR brachytherapy. The median age was 73, and the majority of patients presented T1-T2 tumors (79%). The median total dose was 70.14 Gy (range: 60-85 Gy). With a mean follow-up of 35.4 months, two patients (5.6%) presented local failure, and seven patients (19%) had lymph node progression. The Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of local failure was 7.2% (95% CI: 0.84-1) at two and four years. All patients encountered radiomucitis grade II or higher. The rate of late toxicities was low: three patients (8.3%) had grade II fibrosis, and one patient had grade II chronic pain. All patients would highly recommend the treatment. The median FACT H&N total score was 127 out of 148, and the median FACT H&N Trial Outcome Index was 84. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that an excellent local control rate is achieved with PDR brachytherapy as treatment of lip carcinoma, with very limited late side effects and satisfactory functional outcomes. A multimodal approach should help to improve regional control.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Implantations for uterovaginal brachytherapy are usually performed under general or spinal anesthesia, which are not without risk. As it is a rather short procedure and since postoperative pain is minimal, hypnosedation was proposed to selected patients requiring endocavitary applications as part of their routine treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Consecutive patients requiring intracavitary uterovaginal brachytherapy from January to October 2019 were included if they accepted the procedure. A premedication was systematically administered. Hypnosedation was based on an Ericksonian technique. The procedure was immediately interrupted if the patient requested it, in cases of extreme anxiety or pain. Procedure was in that case rescheduled with a "classical" anesthesia technique. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included. Four patients had to be converted toward a general anesthesia: one because of a fibroma on the probe's way and three young patients with a very anteverted/retroverted uterus that was painful at every mobilization. Mean and maximum pain scores during implant were 2.9/10 and 5.1/10, respectively. The most painful maneuver was cervical dilation for 45% of the patients, followed by mold insertion in 40% of cases. About 85% of the patients declared that hypnosis helped them relax; 90% of the patients would recommend the technique. No procedure-related complication occurred. CONCLUSION: With a 70% success rate (correct implant with mean pain and anxiety scores < 5), one can conclude that uterovaginal brachytherapy implantation under hypnosedation is feasible and received a high satisfaction rate from the patients. This technique may reduce overall treatment time in a context of difficult access to the OR and to anesthesiologists, while reducing anesthetic drugs resort and postoperative nausea.
