10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      Are you tired of sifting through news that doesn't interest you?
      Personalize your Karger newsletter today and get only the news that matters to you!

      Sign up

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Practice Patterns for the Treatment of Uveal Melanoma with Iodine-125 Plaque Brachytherapy: Ocular Oncology Study Consortium Report 5

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          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

          Background: Treatment planning for I-125 plaque therapy for uveal melanoma has advanced significantly since the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study trial, with more widely available image-guided planning and improved dosimetry. Objective: We evaluated real-world practice patterns for I-125 plaque brachytherapy in the United States by studying practice patterns at centers that comprise the Ocular Oncology Study Consortium (OOSC). Methods: The OOSC database and responses to a treatment practice survey were evaluated. The database contains treatment information from 9 institutions. Patients included in the database were treated between 2010 and 2014. The survey was conducted in 2018 and current treatment planning methods and prescriptions were queried. Results: Examination of the OOSC database revealed that average doses to critical structures were highly consistent, with the exception of one institution. Survey responses indicated that most centers followed published guidelines regarding dose and prescription point. Dose rate ranged from 51 to 118 cGy/h. As of 2018, most institutions use pre-loaded plaques and fundus photographs and/or computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging in planning. Conclusions: While there were differences in dosimetric practices, overall agreement in plaque brachytherapy practices was high among OOSC institutions. Clinical margins and planning systems were similar among institutions, while prescription dose, dose rates, and dosimetry varied.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for plaque brachytherapy of uveal melanoma and retinoblastoma.

          (2014)
          To present the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) guidelines for plaque brachytherapy of choroidal melanoma and retinoblastoma.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dosimetry of (125)I and (103)Pd COMS eye plaques for intraocular tumors: report of Task Group 129 by the AAPM and ABS.

              Dosimetry of eye plaques for ocular tumors presents unique challenges in brachytherapy. The challenges in accurate dosimetry are in part related to the steep dose gradient in the tumor and critical structures that are within millimeters of radioactive sources. In most clinical applications, calculations of dose distributions around eye plaques assume a homogenous water medium and full scatter conditions. Recent Monte Carlo (MC)-based eye-plaque dosimetry simulations have demonstrated that the perturbation effects of heterogeneous materials in eye plaques, including the gold-alloy backing and Silastic insert, can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. Even additional levels of complexity introduced through the use of gold foil "seed-guides" and custom-designed plaques can be calculated accurately using modern MC techniques. Simulations accounting for the aforementioned complexities indicate dose discrepancies exceeding a factor of ten to selected critical structures compared to conventional dose calculations. Task Group 129 was formed to review the literature; re-examine the current dosimetry calculation formalism; and make recommendations for eye-plaque dosimetry, including evaluation of brachytherapy source dosimetry parameters and heterogeneity correction factors. A literature review identified modern assessments of dose calculations for Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) design plaques, including MC analyses and an intercomparison of treatment planning systems (TPS) detailing differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous plaque calculations using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TG-43U1 brachytherapy dosimetry formalism and MC techniques. This review identified that a commonly used prescription dose of 85 Gy at 5 mm depth in homogeneous medium delivers about 75 Gy and 69 Gy at the same 5 mm depth for specific (125)I and (103)Pd sources, respectively, when accounting for COMS plaque heterogeneities. Thus, the adoption of heterogeneous dose calculation methods in clinical practice would result in dose differences >10% and warrant a careful evaluation of the corresponding changes in prescription doses. Doses to normal ocular structures vary with choice of radionuclide, plaque location, and prescription depth, such that further dosimetric evaluations of the adoption of MC-based dosimetry methods are needed. The AAPM and American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommend that clinical medical physicists should make concurrent estimates of heterogeneity-corrected delivered dose using the information in this report's tables to prepare for brachytherapy TPS that can account for material heterogeneities and for a transition to heterogeneity-corrected prescriptive goals. It is recommended that brachytherapy TPS vendors include material heterogeneity corrections in their systems and take steps to integrate planned plaque localization and image guidance. In the interim, before the availability of commercial MC-based brachytherapy TPS, it is recommended that clinical medical physicists use the line-source approximation in homogeneous water medium and the 2D AAPM TG-43U1 dosimetry formalism and brachytherapy source dosimetry parameter datasets for treatment planning calculations. Furthermore, this report includes quality management program recommendations for eye-plaque brachytherapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                OOP
                OOP
                10.1159/issn.2296-4657
                Ocular Oncology and Pathology
                S. Karger AG
                2296-4681
                2296-4657
                2020
                May 2020
                11 December 2019
                : 6
                : 3
                : 210-218
                Affiliations
                [_a] aDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
                [_b] bDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
                [_c] cDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
                [_d] dRetina Consultants of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
                [_e] eThe Permanente Medical Group, San Francisco, California, USA
                [_f] fDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
                [_g] gDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
                [_h] hDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [_i] iDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
                [_j] jDepartment of Radiation Oncology/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA
                [_k] kDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
                [_l] lDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
                [_m] mRadiation Oncology Centers, PC, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
                [_n] nDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Porter Adventist, Centura Health, Denver, Colorado, USA
                [_o] oCasey Eye Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
                [_p] pDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University and Yale-New haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
                Author notes
                *Dr. Alison H. Skalet, MD, PhD, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 3375 SW Terwilliger Blvd, Portland, OR 97239 (USA), E-Mail skalet@ohsu.edu
                Article
                504312 Ocul Oncol Pathol 2020;6:210–218
                10.1159/000504312
                3de0a88c-3dfa-426f-971c-8753d04ad36c
                © 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 02 July 2019
                : 06 August 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Research Article

                Vision sciences,Ophthalmology & Optometry,Pathology
                Uveal melanoma,Brachytherapy,Treatment practices

                Comments

                Comment on this article