High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for localized prostate cancer using three different doses - 14 years of single-centre experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC) treated with 3D conformal high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) as monotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2004 to November 2017, 277 men with LPC underwent 3D conformal HDR-BT as monotherapy, with a temporary implant. The dose prescription was: 38 Gy in 4 fractions (149 patients), 27 Gy in 2 fractions (41 patients), and 19-20 Gy in a single fraction (87 patients). Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated. Acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity assessment were performed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 (range, 47-81) years. Overall, 145 patients were low-risk, 116 intermediate-risk, and 16 high-risk prostate cancer. After a median follow-up of six years (range, 6-160 months), bPFS, PFS, and CSS were 81%, 96%, and 97%, respectively. Dose prescription, initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA) ≥ 9,5 ng/ml, and high-risk disease resulted in prognostic factors regarding bPFS. Only G2-G3 acute or late GI and GU toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: HDR-BT as monotherapy is a valid and safe treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. After a long follow-up, patients receiving 19-20 Gy in a single fraction had a lower biochemical control rate compared to patients receiving 38 Gy in 4 fractions or 27 Gy in 2 fractions. Randomized prospective trials with a longer follow-up are necessary to confirm our results, and define total doses and dose per fraction for HDR-BT in patients with LPC.

Management of grade 3 acute dermatitis with moist desquamation after adjuvant chest wall radiotherapy: a case report.

We reported a successful case management of G3 skin acute dermatitis in a 32-year-old woman affected by locally advanced breast cancer underwent adjuvant chest wall irradiation. Skin acute toxicity with dry desquamation areas was treated daily with dressing medication using physiological solution, oxygen therapy and applying hyaluronic acid gauze. At the end of radiotherapy treatment, G3 skin acute dermatitis with moist desquamation was observed, so the patient continued advanced wound dressing shifted to twice weekly with physiological solution, oxygen therapy and applying hydrocolloid dressing. The patient completed radiotherapy treatment without interruption and one month after treatment acute skin toxicity was resolved with pain relief. We suggest that advanced dressing with trained nursing staff is essential in this sub-set of patients due to guaranteed continuation of radiotherapy treatment, indispensable to ensure patient cure.

Static and rotational intensity modulated techniques for head-neck cancer radiotherapy: a planning comparison.

PURPOSE: To compare helical Tomotherapy (HT), two volumetric-modulated arc techniques and conventional fixed-field intensity modulated techniques (S-IMRT) for head-neck (HN) cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen HN patients were considered. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient: HT, S-IMRT optimised with Eclipse treatment planning system and two volumetric techniques using Elekta-Oncentra approach (VMAT) and Varian-RapidArc (RA), using two full arcs. All techniques were optimised to simultaneously deliver 66Gy to PTV1 (GTV and enlarged nodes) and 54Gy to PTV2 (subclinical and electively treated nodes). Comparisons were assessed on several dosimetric parameters and, secondarily, on planned MUs and delivery time. RESULTS: Concerning PTV coverage, significantly better results were found for HT and RA. HT significantly improved the target coverage both compared to S-IMRT and VMAT. No significant differences were found between S-IMRT and volumetric techniques in terms of dose homogeneity. For OARs, all the techniques were able to satisfy all hard constraints; significantly better results were found for HT, especially in the intermediate dose range (15-30 Gy). S-IMRT reached a significantly better OARs sparing with respect to VMAT and RA. No significant differences were found for body mean dose, excepting higher values of V5-V10 for HT. A reduction of planned MUs and delivery treatment time was found with volumetric techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The objectives of satisfying target coverage and sparing of critical structures were reached with all techniques. S-IMRT techniques were found more advantageous compared to RA and VMAT for OARs sparing. HT reached the best overall treatment plan quality.