Inaccuracies in using the lumpectomy scar for planning electron boosts in primary breast carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of using the lumpectomy scar, specifically the midpoint or center of the scar, to define the tumor bed in the electron beam boost for the treatment of early stage breast carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Electron boost simulation films from 316 cases of early breast carcinoma treated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy were reviewed. For each case which had surgically placed lumpectomy bed clips (N = 316), four clinical set-up methods ("hypothetical fields") of several field sizes were compared to the actual location of the tumor bed (as defined by the surgical clips). Each method was based on using the center of the scar as the center of the field and is described as follows: Method 1 uses a standard circular cone of a given diameter, method 2 also uses circular cones, but the diameter is based on the scar length; method 3 uses an oval field in which a constant margin is kept around the scar; method 4 results in an oblong field in which a 2 cm margin is placed on the lateral edge of the scar, but a larger margin around the center of the scar. The adequacy of each of these popular clinical set-up techniques was then analyzed for the population as a whole. "Inadequate" coverage was defined as any portion of the field edge coming within 1 cm of at least one surgical clip. RESULTS: (1) Method 1: Inadequate coverage was found in 43%, 26%, and 17% of cases, using 7, 8, and 9 cm cones, respectively. (2) Method 2: Inadequate coverage was found in 88%, 61%, 36% and 20% of cases, with field size = scar length + 0, 2, 3, and 4 cm, respectively. (3) Method 3: Inadequate coverage was found in 34%, 17%, and 10% of cases, using 3, 3.5, and 4 cm margins, respectively. (4) Method 4: Inadequate coverage was found in 36% and 24% of cases using 3.5 and 4 cm margins around the scar center, respectively. Inadequate coverage was found in 51% and 42% of cases using margins equal to one-half the scar length or one-half the scar length + 1 cm, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the lumpectomy scar is often a poor indicator of the location of the underlying tumor bed as defined by surgical clips. We recommend the use of clip placement and simulation of the electron boost to maximize target definition.

Perioperative morbidity of intracavitary gynecologic brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To define the incidence and severity of perioperative morbidity and its subsequent management with standard tandem and ovoid insertions and to evaluate pretreatment and treatment factors associated with an increased risk of perioperative morbidity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ninety-five tandem and ovoid insertions were performed at the Fox Chase Cancer Center between 1985 and 1992 for cervical (n = 91) and endometrial (n = 4) cancer. Patients were placed on antibiotics in 19%, usually for a positive routine preoperative urine culture, but no patient was given prophylactic antibiotic therapy. Deep-vein thrombosis prophylaxis was practiced for 70% of implants and included subcutaneous heparin (40%), graduated compression elastic stockings (16%), and external pneumatic calf compression (14%). All patients were placed on prophylactic diphenoxylate hydrochloride, with doses ranging from three to eight tablets/day. RESULTS: Intraoperative complications were seen in 3% of implants and included two perforations and a vaginal laceration in two patients. Twenty-four percent of implants (16 patients) developed temperatures of > 100.5 (range 100.6 to 103), although only one patient required implant removal because of fever. Management of fever included antibiotics in 35% and acetaminophen only in 65%. Five implants (5%) were removed emergently secondary to presumed sepsis (n = 1), exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypotension, change in mental status (n = 3), and myocardial infarction/congestive heart failure (n = 1). No patient developed a deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, gastrointestinal obstruction, or died of a postoperative complication. Univariate analysis of pretreatment and treatment factors revealed older age (p < 0.005) and spinal/epidural anesthesia (p < 0.02) to be associated with increased perioperative morbidity, and older age (p < 0.05) and higher ASA classification (p < 0.02) to be associated with severe complications requiring removal of implant. Multivariate analysis revealed only older age (p < 0.01) to be significantly related to perioperative morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Fever of > 100.5 was seen in 24% of implants and can be managed successfully without removal of the implant in 96% of cases. Use of antibiotics preoperatively and intraoperatively did not reduce the risk of perioperative temperature elevation. Use of routine diphenoxylate hydrochloride prophylaxis was tolerated without ileus or gastrointestinal obstruction clinically. Although routine deep-vein thrombosis prophylaxis is reasonable, our data would support a low risk of deep-vein thrombosis for untreated patients. Severe perioperative morbidity necessitated premature implant removal in only 5% of cases and was related to older age in multivariate analysis.

Volumetric analysis of small bowel displacement from radiation portals with the use of a pelvic tissue expander.

PURPOSE: Many techniques and devices have been used in an attempt to minimize gastrointestinal morbidity of pelvic irradiation. The value of a temporary intrapelvic tissue expander to displace small bowel from pelvic radiotherapy fields was analyzed by comparing volumetric treatment parameters of patients with and without such a device. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1983 and 1991, 77 patients with a diagnosis of endometrial (n = 35), colorectal (n = 41), or anal carcinoma (n = 1) received adjuvant postoperative radiotherapy after undergoing treatment planning simulation with the use of small bowel oral contrast medium. Fourteen of these patients underwent surgical placement of a temporary intrapelvic tissue expander prior to radiotherapy, and 63 patients did not. Small bowel volume within the treatment portals was measured for both initial pelvic and conedown fields for all cases, and compared between the two patient groups. RESULTS: The volume of small bowel within the initial pelvic fields receiving full dose irradiation was significantly less among patients with a tissue expander. For patients with a tissue expander, mean volume receiving full dose irradiation was 25 cm3 (median 0 cm3, range 0-297 cm3), whereas the corresponding volume was 239 cm3 (median 181 cm3, range 0-943 cm3) without a tissue expander (p < .0001). A similar reduction of irradiated small bowel volume was noted in the conedown fields with the use of a tissue expander (p = .07). Volumes receiving less than full dose irradiation were also less within the initial pelvic (p = .0001) and conedown (p = .002) fields with a tissue expander. Multivariate analysis of patient and treatment-related parameters showed the use of a tissue expander to be the only factor correlated with decreased small bowel volume within the treatment field (p = .003). Morbidity related to placement and removal of the tissue expander was acceptable. Acute radiation-related morbidity was significantly less in patients irradiated with a tissue expander in place (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of an intrapelvic tissue expander was correlated with decreased small bowel volume within the radiotherapy treatment field. Diminished radiation-induced acute gastrointestinal morbidity was noted with use of a tissue expander.

Analysis of complications in patients with endometrial carcinoma receiving adjuvant irradiation.

We analyzed the complications in 310 patients with pathologically documented endometrial carcinoma who received adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) at Fox Chase Cancer Center between 1970 and 1986. Variables included timing of treatment, technique, total dose, age, diabetes, previous abdominal surgery, hypertension, prior bowel pathology, and lymphadenectomy. According to the FIGO (1985) system, 258 patients had Stage I disease, 48 had Stage II, and one had Stage III. One hundred seventy patients received preoperative (preop) RT, 138 received postoperative (postop) RT, and 2 received preop and postop RT. A 4-field technique was used for 212 of 235 patients receiving external-beam (EX) RT, and 75 patients were treated with intracavitary (IC) RT only. Median follow-up was 5.5 years. Actuarial survival of all 310 patients was 78% at 5 years. Thirty-two complications occurred, involving the rectum, small bowel, femur, or lower extremity. Complications were graded according to the ECOG scoring system as grade 2 (mild) and grades 3, 4, or 5 (serious). One of 75 patients treated with IC RT only experienced a grade-2 complication (proctitis). Of 71 patients receiving 4-field EX RT only, 25 preop (16%) and 14 postop (14%) patients had complications. Of 139 patients treated with both EX and IC RT, grade-2 complications were seen in 5% of 87 preop patients and 12% of 52 postop patients (p = 0.17), whereas serious complications were observed in 4% of each group. Univariate analysis of the variables of interest revealed that the incidence of complications was associated with a lymphadenectomy (p = .03), use of external RT (p less than .01), and decreasing age (p = .04). Multivariate analysis confirmed that use of external RT was the most significant predictor for complications. In conclusion, similar complication rates were found in patients treated with either preop or postop 4-field EX RT. While pelvic RT clearly decreases pelvic relapse in patient with endometrial carcinoma, the risk benefit ratio for treatment of these patients should be carefully considered when recommending adjuvant RT for pelvic control.