Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10554641

Breast boost--why, how, when...?

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast conservation management including tumorectomy or quadrantectomy and external beam radiotherapy with a dose of 45 to 50 Gy in the treatment of small breast carcinomas is generally accepted. The use of a radiation boost--in particular for specific subgroups--has not been clarified. With regard to the boost technique there is some controversy between groups emphasizing the value of electron boost treatment and groups pointing out the value of interstitial boost treatment. This controversy has become even more complicated as there is an increasing number of institutions reporting the use of HDR interstitial brachytherapy for boost treatment. The most critical issue with regard to interstitial HDR brachytherapy is the assumed serious long-term morbidity after a high single radiation dose as used in HDR-treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: This article gives a perspective and recommendations on some aspects of this issue (indication, timing, target volume, dose and dose rate). CONCLUSION: More information about the indication for a boost is to be expected from the EORTC trial 22881/10882. Careful selection of treatment procedures for specific subgroups of patients and refinement in surgical procedures and radiotherapy techniques may be useful in improving the clinical and cosmetic results in breast conservation therapy. Prospective trials comparing on the one hand different boost techniques and on the other hand particular morphologic criteria in treatments with boost and without boost are needed to give more detailed recommendations for boost indications and for boost techniques.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Hammer, J J Mazeron, E Van Limbergen. 1999. Breast boost--why, how, when...?. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000660050057

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Dosimetric comparison of pre-planned and or-planned prostate seed brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetry of the traditional two step procedure (volume study + treatment planning several weeks later) with that of an OR-based single procedure in which these two steps follow one another immediately. Computer generated treatment plans were used in both procedures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several dosimetric parameters relating to target coverage were obtained from dose volume histograms of CT-based evaluation plans developed either 1 or 3 days following seed implantation. A total of 113 patients with early stage (T1C, T2A) prostate cancer were used for this retrospective study. RESULTS: The fraction of target (prostate) covered by the prescription dose (144 Gy), 90% of the prescription dose (115 Gy), and the dose encompassing 90% of the target in the evaluation plan were all statistically significantly improved for OR-based plans compared to pre-planned cases. CONCLUSION: In our hands, there is a small but significant improvement in dose coverage of the prostate when the ultrasound volume study and treatment planning are combined into a single procedure.

Brachytherapy↗

Optimizing target coverage by dosimetric feedback during prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Postimplant dosimetry of permanent prostate implants shows a loss of coverage compared to the preplan. One contributing factor is needle misplacement. The significance of needle misplacement and the clinical utility of dosimetric feedback were analyzed in the setting of interventional magnetic resonance (IMR) guided prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Information provided by an intraoperative planning system was analyzed for 10 patients. Needle misplacement was measured and the dosimetric consequences calculated. Additional catheters and sources were placed following the insertion of all planned catheters to compensate for nonideal needle placement. RESULTS: Source misplacement ranged from 0.0 to 1.0 cm (median, 0.3 cm). The resulting loss of coverage ranged from 1% to 13%, and the intraoperative dosimetric feedback allowed a recovery of from 0% to 12% coverage. Between 0 and 3 (median, 2) additional needles and from 0 to 10 (median, 8) additional sources were required to restore coverage of the target. Final planned coverage exceeded 94% for all patients. CONCLUSION: The discrepancy between planned and achieved needle placement leads to a loss of dosimetric coverage of the target volume. Dosimetric feedback allows compensation for needle divergence. The technique of real-time dosimetric feedback does not require an IMR system, and could be generalized to ultrasound-guided implants.

Brachytherapy↗

Additional treatments and reimbursement rates associated with prostate cancer treatment for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, interstitial brachytherapy, and external beam radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To define patterns of treatment among contemporary patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, interstitial radiation, and external beam radiation for prostate cancer. METHODS: We analyzed 291 consecutive patients (Stage T1-T3NXM0) who underwent definitive local treatment for prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy, interstitial seed implantation, or external beam radiation. Patients were stratified into three risk groups based on clinical T stage, serum prostate-specific antigen level at diagnosis, and biopsy Gleason score. The frequency of additional treatments, including androgen deprivation and external beam radiation, given within 3 months of initial local therapy was assessed. Patterns of care were compared and adjusted for risk. RESULTS: Of the 291 patients, 107 (36. 8%) underwent radical prostatectomy, 94 (32.3%) underwent interstitial seed implantation, and 90 (30.9%) underwent external beam radiation. Use of combination therapy differed significantly according to the type of initial local treatment and risk category. No patient in the low-risk group received combination therapy. For patients in the intermediate and high-risk groups, the frequency of combination therapy was significantly lower in the radical prostatectomy group when compared with either the interstitial seed implantation (P <0.001 and P <0.02, respectively) or external beam radiation group (P <0.001 and P <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in resource utilization for contemporary patients undergoing definitive local therapy for prostate cancer. These differences may have a significant effect on treatment cost and morbidity, and they will likely make short-term comparisons between different treatment modalities difficult because of the high use of androgen deprivation in men treated with radiation therapy.

Brachytherapy↗