Comparison of Computed Tomography- and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Clinical Target Volume Contours at Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer.

PURPOSE: We prospectively compared computed tomography (CT)- and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) contours at the time of brachytherapy for cervical cancer in an effort to identify patients who might benefit most from MRI-based planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-seven patients who had undergone a pretreatment diagnostic MRI scan were included in the analysis. We delineated the HR-CTV on the brachytherapy CT and brachytherapy MRI scans independently for each patient. We then calculated the absolute volumes for each HR-CTV and the Dice coefficient of similarity (DC, a measure of spatial agreement) for the HR-CTV contours. We identified the clinical and tumor factors associated with (1) a discrepancy in volume between the CT HR-CTV and MRI HR-CTV contours; and (2) DC. The mean values were compared using 1-way analysis of variance or paired or unpaired t tests, as appropriate. Simple and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to model the effects of covariates on the outcomes. RESULTS: Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB to IVA cervical cancer were treated with intracavitary brachytherapy using tandem and ovoid (n=33) or tandem and cylinder (n=4) applicators. The mean CT HR-CTV volume (44.1 cm3) was larger than the mean MRI HR-CTV volume (35.1 cm3; P<.0001, paired t test). On multivariable analysis, a higher body mass index (BMI) and tumor size ≥5 cm with parametrial invasion on the MRI scan at diagnosis were associated with an increased discrepancy in volume between the HR-CTV contours (P<.02 for both). In addition, the spatial agreement (as measured by DC) between the HR-CTV contours decreased with an increasing BMI (P=.013). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend MRI-based brachytherapy planning for patients with tumors >5 cm and parametrial invasion on MRI at diagnosis and for those with a high BMI.

Optimizing packing contrast for MRI-based intracavitary brachytherapy planning for cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: We prospectively tested five variations in vaginal gauze packing in an effort to improve contrast between the packing, cervix, and applicator for MRI-based intracavitary brachytherapy planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients enrolled on a prospective study from May 2013 to October 2013 received MRI-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer with variations of impregnated gauze packing. Substances tested included antibiotic cream alone, antibiotic cream mixed with ultrasound gel, conjugated estrogens cream mixed with ultrasound gel, ultrasound gel alone, and gadolinium. Images from the T2-weighted pelvic MRI were used to obtain signal intensity measurements at points within the packing, cervix, and applicator. Signal intensity values were normalized using the signal-to-noise ratio and compared using an unpaired t-test. RESULTS: Ultrasound gel-impregnated gauze allowed for the greatest contrast between the packing and the cervix with a difference in mean normalized signal intensity of 38.2 (p < 0.01). Conjugated estrogens cream mixed with ultrasound gel and gadolinium also provided contrast when compared with cervix, with differences in mean normalized signal intensity of 25.3 and -16.2, respectively (p < 0.01 for both). For all variations but gadolinium, the normalized mean signal intensity of the packing was found to be significantly different from the applicator, with the ultrasound gel again demonstrating the greatest contrast with a difference of 42.5 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Gauze impregnated with ultrasound gel, conjugated estrogens cream mixed with ultrasound gel, and gadolinium allowed for a significant difference in MRI signal intensity between the packing and the cervix. With respect to both the cervix and the applicator, ultrasoundgel-impregnated gauze provided the best contrast overall.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: long-term outcomes of 53 patients treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of conservative surgery and radiation therapy (RT) treatment in patients with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 consecutive dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans patients treated with surgery and preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy between 1972 and 2010. Median tumor size was 4 cm (range, 1-25 cm). Seven patients (13%) were treated with preoperative RT (50-50.4 Gy) and 46 patients (87%) with postoperative RT (60-66 Gy). Of the 46 patients receiving postoperative radiation, 3 (7%) had gross disease, 14 (30%) positive margins, 26 (57%) negative margins, and 3 (7%) uncertain margin status. Radiation dose ranged from 50 to 66 Gy (median dose, 60 Gy). RESULTS: At a median follow-up time of 6.5 years (range, 0.5 months-23.5 years), 2 patients (4%) had disease recurrence, and 3 patients (6%) had died. Actuarial overall survival was 98% at both 5 and 10 years. Local control was 98% and 93% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Disease-free survival was 98% and 93% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The presence of fibrosarcomatous change was not associated with increased risk of local or distant relapse (P=.43). One of the patients with a local recurrence had gross residual disease at the time of RT and despite RT to 65 Gy developed both an in-field recurrence and a nodal and distant recurrence 3 months after RT. The other patient with local recurrence was found to have in-field recurrence 10 years after initial treatment. Thirteen percent of patients had an RT complication at 5 and 10 years, and 9% had a moderate or severe complication at 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is a radioresponsive disease with excellent local control after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Adjuvant RT should be considered for patients with large or recurrent tumors or when attempts at wide surgical margins would result in significant morbidity.

Is androgen deprivation therapy necessary in all intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated in the dose escalation era?

PURPOSE: The benefit of adding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer is unclear; therefore, we assessed the impact of adding ADT to dose-escalated RT on freedom from failure (FFF). METHODS: Three groups of men treated with intensity modulated RT or 3-dimensional conformal RT (75.6-78 Gy) from 1993-2008 for prostate cancer were categorized as (1) 326 intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone, (2) 218 intermediate-risk patients treated with RT and ≤6 months of ADT, and (3) 274 low-risk patients treated with definitive RT. Median follow-up was 58 months. Recursive partitioning analysis based on FFF using Gleason score (GS), T stage, and pretreatment PSA concentration was applied to the intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5-year FFF. RESULTS: Based on recursive partitioning analysis, intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone were divided into 3 prognostic groups: (1) 188 favorable patients: GS 6, ≤T2b or GS 3+4, ≤T1c; (2) 71 marginal patients: GS 3+4, T2a-b; and (3) 68 unfavorable patients: GS 4+3 or T2c disease. Hazard ratios (HR) for recurrence in each group were 1.0, 2.1, and 4.6, respectively. When intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone were compared to intermediate-risk patients treated with RT and ADT, the greatest benefit from ADT was seen for the unfavorable intermediate-risk patients (FFF, 74% vs 94%, respectively; P=.005). Favorable intermediate-risk patients had no significant benefit from the addition of ADT to RT (FFF, 94% vs 95%, respectively; P=.85), and FFF for favorable intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone approached that of low-risk patients treated with RT alone (98%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer did not benefit from the addition of ADT to dose-escalated RT, and their FFF was nearly as good as patients with low-risk disease. In patients with GS 4+3 or T2c disease, the addition of ADT to dose-escalated RT did improve FFF.