Single institution implementation of permanent  131 Cs interstitial brachytherapy for previously irradiated patients with resectable recurrent head and neck carcinoma

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Purpose

Permanent interstitial brachytherapy is an appealing treatment modality for patients with locoregional recurrent, resectable head and neck carcinoma (HNC), having previously received radiation. Cesium-131 ( ¹³¹Cs) is a permanent implant brachytherapy isotope, with a low average photon energy of 30 keV and a short half-life of 9.7 days. Exposure to medical staff and family members is low; patient isolation and patient room shielding are not required. This work presents a single institution’s implementation process of utilizing an intraoperative, permanent ¹³¹Cs implant for patients with completely resected recurrent HNC.

Material and methods

Fifteen patients receiving ¹³¹Cs permanent seed brachytherapy were included in this analysis. The process of pre-planning, selecting the dose prescription, seed ordering, intraoperative procedures, post-implant planning, and radiation safety protocols are described.

Results

Tumor volumes were contoured on the available preoperative PET/CT scans and a pre-implant treatment plan was created using uniform source strength and uniform 1 cm seed spacing. Implants were performed intraoperatively, following tumor resection. In five of the fifteen cases, intraoperative findings necessitated a change from the planned number of seeds and recalculation of the pre-implant plan. The average prescription dose was 56.1 ±6.6 Gy (range, 40-60 Gy). The average seed strength used was 2.2 ±0.2 U (3.5 ±0.3 mCi). Patients returned to a recovery room on a standard surgical floor and remained inpatients, without radiation safety restrictions, based on standard surgical recovery protocols. A post-implant treatment plan was generated based on immediate post-operative CT imaging to verify the seed distribution and confirm delivery of the prescription dose. Patients were provided educational information regarding radiation safety recommendations.

Conclusions

Cesium-131 interstitial brachytherapy is feasible and does not pose major radiation safety concerns; it should be considered as a treatment option for previously irradiated patients with recurrent, resectable HNC.

Related collections

Most cited references 34

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Salvage surgery for patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract: when do the ends justify the means?

Cleon Goodwin (2000)

Salvage surgery is widely viewed as a "double-edged sword." It is the best option for many patients with recurrent cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract, especially when original therapy included irradiation, yet it may provide only modest benefit at high personal cost to the patient. The stakes are high because alternatives are of limited value. The primary objective of this study was to fully assess the value of salvage surgical procedures in the treatment of local and regional recurrence. The following hypotheses were developed to focus the study design and data analysis. 1) The efficacy of salvage surgery correlates recurrent stage, recurrent site, and time to presalvage recurrence. 2) The economic and noneconomic costs of salvage surgery increase with higher recurrent stage. 3) Information relating the value of salvage surgery to recurrent stage and recurrent site will be useful to these patients and the physicians who treat them. Two complimentary methods of investigation were used: a meta-analysis of the published literature and a prospective observational study of patients undergoing salvage surgery for recurrent cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract. The meta-analysis combined 32 published reports to obtain an estimate of average treatment effect for salvage surgery with regard to survival, disease-free survival, surgical complications, and operative mortality. The prospective observational study included detailed data in 109 patients who underwent salvage surgery. In addition to parameters studied in the meta-analysis, we obtained baseline and interval quality of life data (Functional Living Index for Cancer [FLIC] scores), baseline and interval performance status evaluations (Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients [PSS head and neck scores]), length of hospital stay, and hospital and physician charges, and related this data primarily to recurrent stage, recurrent site, and time to presalvage recurrence. The weighted average of 5-year survival in the meta-analysis was 39% in 1,080 patients from 28 different institutions. In the prospective study, median disease-free survival was 17.9 months in 109 patients, and this correlated strongly with recurrent stage, weakly with recurrent site, and not at all with time to presalvage recurrence. Noneconomic costs for patients and economic costs correlated with recurrent stage, but not with site. Baseline FLIC and PSS head and neck scores correlated with recurrent stage, but not with site. After salvage surgery the percentage of patients reaching or exceeding baseline was 51% for FLIC scores, and this differed significantly with recurrent stage. Postoperative interval "success" in PSS head and neck subscale scores for diet and eating in public also correlated with recurrent stage. Overall, the expected efficacy for salvage surgery in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer was surprisingly good, but success was limited and costs were great in stage III and, especially, in stage IV recurrences. A strong correlation of efficacy and noneconomic costs with recurrent stage allowed the creation of expectation profiles that may be useful to patients. Additional systematic clinical research is needed to improve results. In the end, the decision to undergo salvage surgery should be a personal choice made by the patient after honest and compassionate discussion with his or her surgeon.

0 comments Cited 114 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Optimal treatment for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer.

J.B. Vermorken, P Specenier (2010)

While a large proportion of patients presenting with stage I and II squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) will remain disease free after single modality treatment, the majority of patients presenting in a more advanced disease stage and very often treated with a form of combined modality treatment, will eventually relapse, either locoregionally only, at distant sites only or both. A few patients with a locoregional recurrence can be salvaged by surgery or reirradiation. However, most patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) disease only qualify for palliative treatment. Treatment options in these patients include supportive care only, or in addition single agent chemotherapy, combination chemotherapy or targeted therapies either alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents. Prognostic factors analysis in such patients treated with (platinum-based) chemotherapy has identified five adverse prognostic factors, which seems worthwhile to take into consideration when performing trials; one pathologic feature (tumor cell differentiation) and four clinical baseline characteristics (ECOG performance status, weight loss, location of the primary tumor and prior radiotherapy). Moreover, it has been shown that response to systemic therapy has a major impact on survival. None of the trials performed in the past, even those with a reasonable sample size, have shown that aggressive platinum-based combination chemotherapy leads to survival benefit when compared to single agent methotrexate, cisplatin or 5-fluorouracil. After decades without real progress, a recent European randomized trial showed that adding cetuximab, the first clinically available EGFR-directed monoclonal antibody, to a standard chemotherapy regimen (platinum/5-fluorouracil) leads to an important survival benefit and this, with support of an additional smaller study in the US, has changed practice.

0 comments Cited 91 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

GEC-ESTRO recommendations for brachytherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.

Jean-Jacques Mazeron, Jean-Michel Ardiet, Christine Haie-Meder … (2009)

Both primary and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck are classic indications for brachytherapy. A high rate of local tumor control at the cost of limited morbidity can be achieved with brachytherapy through good patient selection, meticulous source implantation and careful treatment planning. However, no randomized trials have been performed, and there is scant evidence in the literature especially regarding practical clinical recommendations for brachytherapy for head and neck subsites. The Head and Neck Working Group of the European Brachytherapy Group (Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) therefore decided to formulate the present consensus recommendations for low-dose rate, pulsed-dose rate and high-dose rate brachytherapy. The use of brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy and/or surgery is also covered as well as the use of brachytherapy in previously irradiated patients. Given the paucity of evidence in the literature, these recommendations are mainly based on clinical experience accumulated by the members of the working group over several decades and the respective publications. The recommendations cover in a general part (1) patient selection, the pre-treatment work up and patient care, (2) treatment strategy, (3) target definition, (4) implant techniques, (5) dose and dose rate prescription, (6) treatment planning and reporting, (7) treatment monitoring (8) catheter removal, and (9) post-treatment patient care and follow-up. The recommendations are then specified for the classical brachytherapy tumor sites following an analogue more focussed structure (patient selection, implant technique, target definition, dose and dose rate prescription, results): lip, oral mucosa, mobile tongue, floor of mouth, oropharynx, nasopharynx, paranasal sinuses.

0 comments Cited 64 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Contemp Brachytherapy

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Contemp Brachytherapy

Journal ID (publisher-id): JCB

Title: Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy

Publisher: Termedia Publishing House

ISSN (Print): 1689-832X

ISSN (Electronic): 2081-2841

Publication date (Electronic): 28 June 2019

Publication date (Print): June 2019

Volume: 11

Issue: 3

Pages: 227-234

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States

[2 ]Department of Otolaryngology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States

[3 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States

[4 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, United States

Author notes

Address for correspondence: Voichita Bar-Ad, MD, phone: +1-215-955-6702; Emily Hubley, MSc, Department of Radiation Oncology, Bodine Center for Cancer Treatment, 111 S. 11th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, United States. phone: +1-215-955-0300. e-mail: emilyhubley1@ 123456gmail.com

Article

Publisher ID: 36873

DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2019.85778

PMC ID: 6701381

SO-VID: 38afba6f-8794-41a8-a39f-86528fc85009

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.