Impact of "optimized" treatment planning for tandem and ring, and tandem and ovoids, using high dose rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: Different treatment techniques are used in high dose rate (HDR) remote afterloading intracavitary brachytherapy for uterine cervical cancer. We have investigated the differences between "optimized" and "nonoptimized" therapy using both a tandem and ring (T/R) applicator, and a tandem and ovoids (T/O), applicator. METHODS AND MATERIALS: HDR afterloading brachytherapy using the Madison System for Stage IB cervical cancer was simulated for 10 different patients using both a T/R applicator and a T/O applicator. A treatment course consists of external beam irradiation and five insertions of HDR afterloading brachytherapy. Full dosimetry calculations were performed at the initial insertion for both applicators and used as a reference for the following four insertions of the appropriate applicator. Forty dosimetry calculations were performed to determine the dose delivered to Point M (similar to Point A), Point E (obturator lymph nodes), vaginal surface, bladder, and rectum. "Optimized" doses were specified to Point M and to the vaginal surface. "Nonoptimized" doses were specified to Point M only. Using the linear-quadratic equation, calculations have been performed to convert the delivered dose using HDR to the biologically equivalent doses at the conventional low dose rate (LDR) at 0.60 Gy/h. RESULTS: Major differences between "optimized" and "nonoptimized" LDR equivalent doses were found at the vaginal surface, bladder, and rectum. Overdoses at the vaginal surface, bladder, and rectum were calculated to be 208%, nil, and 42%, respectively, for the T/R applicator with "nonoptimization." However, for the T/O applicator, the overdoses were smaller, being nil, 32%, and 27%, respectively, with "nonoptimization." CONCLUSION: Doses given in high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy border on tissue tolerance. "Optimization" of either applicator decreases the risk of a dose that may have potential for complications. Optimization of a tandem and ovoids best ensures that the doses are not diminished at the treatment sites, and that the potential for overdose is reduced.

Postoperative vaginal cuff irradiation using high dose rate remote afterloading: a phase II clinical protocol.

PURPOSE: In September 1989, a postoperative Phase II high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy protocol was started for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma. This review reports the overall survival, local control, and complication rates for the initial 63 patients treated in this Phase II study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: High dose rate brachytherapy was delivered using an Iridium-192 HDR remote afterloader. Sixty-three patients were entered into the Phase II protocol, each receiving two vaginal cuff treatments 1 week apart (range 4-12 days) with vaginal ovoids (diameter 2.0-3.0 cm). No patient received adjuvant external beam radiation. A dose of 32.4 Gy in two fractions was prescribed to the ovoid surface in 63 patients. The first three patients treated at our institution received 15, 16.2, and 29 Gy, respectively, to determine acute effects. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 1.6 years (range 0.75-4.3 years) no patient has developed a vaginal cuff recurrence. One regional recurrence (1.6%) occurred at 1.2 years at the pelvic side wall. This patient is alive and without evidence of disease 7 months after completion of salvage irradiation, which resulted in the only vaginal stenosis (1.6%). Fourteen patients (22%) experienced vaginal apex fibrosis by physical exam, which was clinically symptomatic in four patients. Two patients reported stress incontinence; however, these symptoms were noted prior to their HDR therapy. One patient died 2.4 years after HDR therapy due to cardiovascular disease without evidence of cancer at autopsy. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results of our phase II HDR vaginal cuff protocol for postoperative FIGO Stage IA, Grade 3 or Stage IB, Grade 1-2 patients demonstrate that 32.4 Gy in two fractions is well tolerated by the vaginal cuff mucosa. Local control appears comparable to our prior experience and others with low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy. Additional patient accrual and further follow-up will better determine the late morbidity, local control, and overall survival of these patients.

Radiation therapy for renal transplant rejection refractory to pulse steroids and OKT3.

PURPOSE: To determine the response rate and kidney graft survival following local irradiation to the transplanted renal graft undergoing persistent rejection after medical management including pulse steroids and OKT3. The role of radiation for renal transplant rejection after failure of OKT3 has not been previously reported. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From July 1, 1988 to July 1, 1994, 72 consecutive patients with kidney graft rejection were treated with local irradiation to the transplanted renal graft following failure of medical management. All patients received pulse steroids and OKT3, an anti-CD3 immunosuppressant. Patients who failed to respond to methylprednisolone and OKT3 therapy were referred for radiation therapy. The median time from the diagnosis of rejection to irradiation was 8 days. All kidney grafts received local graft irradiation to a total of 8 Gy delivered in four daily fractions. RESULTS: Sixty (83%) patients initially responded to radiotherapy at 7 days after completion of radiotherapy, as defined by a decrease in serum creatinine. Thirty-five responding patients have not experienced a second episode of graft rejection. Overall, 43 (60%) patients have renal graft survival, with a median follow-up of 16 months (range of 6-73 months)> CONCLUSION: It is concluded that there is a subgroup of kidney graft patients undergoing graft rejection who are refractory to pulse steroids and OKT3 therapy where irradiation may be an effective modality with high rates of response and a moderate rate of graft survival. However, a prospective, randomized trial in these medically refractory patients is needed to ascertain whether these results are clinically significant.

A multiinstitutional outcome and prognostic factor analysis of radiosurgery for resectable single brain metastasis.

PURPOSE: Recent randomized trials of selected patients with single brain metastasis comparing resection followed by whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) to WBRT alone have shown a statistically significant survival advantage for surgery and WBRT. A multiinstitutional retrospective study was performed, which identified comparable patients who were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (RS) and WBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The RS databases of four institutions were reviewed to identify patients who met the following criteria: single-brain metastasis; no prior cranial surgery or WBRT; age > 18 years; surgically resectable lesion; Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) > or = 70 at time of RS; nonradiosensitive histology. One hundred twenty-two patients were identified who met these criteria. Patients were categorized by: (a) status of the primary, (b) status of non-CNS metastasis, (c) age, (d) baseline KPS (from 70-100), (e) histology, (f) time from diagnosis of primary to the detection of the brain metastasis, (g) gender, and (h) tumor volume. RS was performed with a linear accelerator based technique (peripheral dose range was 10-27 Gy, median was 17 Gy). WBRT was performed in all but five patients who refused WBRT (dose range was 25-40 Gy, median was 37.5 Gy). RESULTS: The median follow-up for all patients was 123 weeks. The overall local control rate (defined as lack of progression in the RS volume) was 86%. Intracranial recurrence outside of the RS volume was seen in 27 patients (22%). The actuarial median survival from date of RS is 56 weeks, and the 1-year and 2-year actuarial survival rates are 53% and 30%. The median duration of functional independence (sustained KPS > or = 70) is 44 weeks. Nineteen of 77 deaths were attributed to CNS progression (25% of all deaths). Multivariate analysis revealed the following factors to be statistically significant predictors of survival: baseline KPS (p < .0001) and absence of other sites of metastasis (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The RS in conjunction with WBRT for single brain metastasis can produce substantial functional survival, especially in patients with good performance status and without extracranial metastasis. These results are comparable to recent randomized trials of resection and WBRT. The advantages of RS over surgery in terms of cost, hospitalization, morbidity, and wider applicability strongly suggest that a randomized trial to compare RS with surgery is warranted.