CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home »

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 15 No. 2
Pages: 1  2  3  
Next
 

Brachytherapy in the Treatment of Breast Cancer

By Subir Nag, MD
Chief of Brachytherapy, Professor of Clinical Radiology, James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Robert R. Kuske, MD

Professor, Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Frank A. Vicini, MD

Program Director, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
Douglas W. Arthur, MD

Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
Robert D. Zwicker, PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia

| February 1, 2001
Whole-breast external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) involves a 6-week course of fractionated treatments. In contrast, brachytherapy can be completed in a 4- to 5-day treatment course. Because of this shortened time frame, there has been interest in breast brachytherapy as a sole modality after lumpectomy. The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) has issued guidelines specifically for the use of brachytherapy in breast carcinoma. In these guidelines, the ABS addresses important areas of controversy related to the indications, execution, and evaluation of breast implants when utilized in the following settings: as the sole treatment modality following lumpectomy, as an alternative to a 6-week course of EBRT following lumpectomy, as a boost following whole-breast irradiation, and for the treatment of local recurrences following breast-conservation treatment. The ABS recommends a precise definition and meticulous delineation of the clinical target volume. In addition, the Society recommends the routine use of dose-volume histograms and a dose-homogeneity index as tools to ensure reproducible brachytherapy and to allow interinstitutional comparisons. Brachytherapy as a sole modality is currently considered investigational and should be performed in the context of a controlled clinical trial. Practitioners and cooperative groups are encouraged to use these guidelines to formulate treatment and dose-reporting policies, but responsibility for medical decisions ultimately rests with the treating radiation oncologist. [ONCOLOGY 15(2):195-207, 2001]

Introduction

Breast brachytherapy has been in use for most of the 20th century. In the 1920s, Keynes used interstitial radium needles to implant the entire breast, and frequently, the peripheral lymph nodes, to treat cancer of the breast.[1] With the advent of megavoltage radiation, external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) was used to treat the whole breast, with brachytherapy being utilized as a boost for unresected tumors. The high total doses resulted in poor cosmetic results, and therefore, the trend was to perform lumpectomy followed by EBRT and lower doses of brachytherapy.[2,3]

Published reports, however, showed that lumpectomy (with biopsy-negative margins) followed by EBRT without an intersitial boost was as effective as mastectomy.[4] This raised the question of whether boosts were necessary. In addition to these reports, the widespread availability of the less invasive electron-beam boost led to a decline in the role of brachytherapy boost in treating primary breast cancers.

Whole-breast EBRT involves a 6-week course of fractionated treatments. In contrast, brachytherapy can be completed in a 4- to 5-day treatment course.[5-7] This feature has renewed interest in breast brachytherapy as a sole treatment modality after lumpectomy. The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recognizes that EBRT is the standard radiation modality used in the treatment of breast cancer. Brachytherapy is an alternative that is being investigated for specific circumstances.

The ABS Guidelines for Brachytherapy

Breast brachytherapy techniques vary widely, and few radiation oncologists have extensive experience in this realm. Because limited guidelines exist for the clinical use of this therapy,[8] the ABS formed a panel to issue guidelines specifically for the use of brachytherapy in breast carcinoma.

The ABS panel consisted of selected ABS members with expertise in breast brachytherapy. The panel performed a literature review, and supplemented with their clinical experience and biomathematical modeling, formulated specific recommendations and directions for future investigations in breast brachytherapy. Technical details were also included to benefit readers who may not be able to find such details in standard textbooks.

Recommendations were made by consensus and supported by evidence in the literature whenever possible. The ABS’s categories of consensus are similar to those used by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.[9] Unless specifically noted, these recommendations generally reflect a category 2 consensus. Definitions of categories 1 through 3 are as follows:

Category 1: There is uniform panel consensus based on high-level evidence that the recommendation is appropriate.

Category 2: There is panel consensus based on lower-level evidence, including nonpublished clinical experience, that the recommendation is appropriate. There is no major disagreement among panel members.

Category 3: There is major disagreement among panel members that the recommendation is appropriate.

The initial report was revised due to additional comments of external experts who were not members of the panel. These reviewers are listed in the acknowledgments below. The Board of Directors of the ABS approved the final document.

Please note: These guidelines represent a consensus of the authors regarding a currently accepted treatment. These guidelines will be updated as significant new outcome data are available. Any clinician following these guidelines is expected to use clinical judgment to determine an individual patient’s treatment. The American Brachytherapy Society makes no warranties of any kind regarding the use of these guidelines and disclaims any responsibility for their application in any way.

General Considerations Regarding Technique

Clinical Target Volume

The ABS recommends precise definition and meticulous delineation of the clinical target volume. There are various methods of identifying this parameter, including the use of surgical clips, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, nonionic radio-opaque contrast material, and/or direct visualization at the time of surgery.[8,10-12] Patients should be seen by both a surgeon and radiation oncologist before treatment.

The optimum volume to be treated by breast brachytherapy is controversial; treating too small a volume would result in high recurrence rates.[13,14] The ABS currently recommends a 2-cm margin around the lumpectomy cavity. This results in the irradiation of a large volume, but reduces local recurrence. Only controlled clinical trials will be able to demonstrate whether it is possible to treat a smaller volume and still obtain good local control.

The clinical target volume is defined as the volume encompassed by an irregularly shaped surface approximately 2 cm outside of the excision cavity, unless extending the margin would go beyond the breast tissue.[8] If the skin restricts the superficial margin, then the superficial target margin is redefined as 0.5 cm below the skin surface. Similarly, if the chest wall restricts the deep margin, the new deep-target margin boundary would be redefined as the surface of the chest wall.

The margin can be modified under special circumstances, depending on the tumor size and extent of surgical resection (consensus category 3). For brachytherapy, the clinical target volume is the same as the planning-target volume. In order to guarantee adequate coverage, the treated volume is ideally larger than the target volume.[8]

Treatment Planes

The ABS recommends using a minimum of two planes, unless the amount of breast tissue limits the target volume to less than a 2-cm thickness. For a larger target volume (> 2.5- to 3-cm thickness), additional planes should be considered.

Optimized values of interplanar spacing for a range of biplanar implant sizes are available.[15-17] Within a given plane, the separation between catheters is 1.0 to 1.5 cm. Ideally, the catheters should extend 1 to 2 cm beyond the edge of the clinical target volume. Coverage of the target volume along the length of the catheters is determined by the length of the active sources or dwell positions along each catheter. They should also extend 1 to 2 cm beyond the target volume.

To allow for this, skin entry and exit points should extend 2 to 4 cm beyond the edge of the target volume. This will allow a "dead space" of 1 to 2 cm from the last radioactive sources to the skin, which minimizes the risk of skin hyperpigmentation and telangiectasia.[8] To minimize the risk of a high dose to the ribs, a minimum distance of 0.5 cm between catheters in the deep plane and the ribs is suggested.

If a wide separation between catheters or planes is noted, or if a peripheral edge at the clinical target volume is not covered by the prescription isodose curve, it is preferable to insert additional catheters to avoid underdosage. Similarly, if the target volume is thicker on one side, additional crossing catheters may be required to adequately cover the thicker side. A less desirable alternative would be a higher weighting (increased dwell times) on the thicker side. However, this may lead to problematic local high-dose regions surrounding these catheters.

Catheter Concerns

The ABS deems the use of rigid templates as optional. The advantage of templates is that they effect precise geometric source distributions. However, this strategy may produce coverage problems in cases of curved, irregularly shaped target volumes. The freehand technique, especially with an open wound, permits catheter placement that conforms to the shape of the lumpectomy cavity. Nonetheless, this may result in less uniform isodose distributions.

The ABS recommends the appropriate use of dose optimization in high-dose-rate therapy. However, optimization should not be used to compensate for inadequate or improper catheter placement. It is preferable to have too many catheters implanted rather than too few. Since the catheters are commonly left in place for 1 to 2 weeks when brachytherapy is used as a sole modality, the ABS recommends appropriate catheter care to reduce the risk of infection and minimize discomfort.[8]

Pages: 1  2  3  
Next
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.






 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
IMAGE IQ

Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
James B. Yu, MD1 , May 17, 2013

A 70-year-old man with a history of localized prostate cancer treated with whole-pelvis radiation therapy with a boost to the prostate, in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy 7 years prior, presented with lower back pain. A bone scan revealed an area of activity in the sacrum. What is the most likely diagnosis?

More Image IQs 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Primary Care Can't Thrive Without Nurse Practitioners
Courtney H. Lyder, ND,  May 17, 2013
With a projected shortfall of primary-care physicians, it's time for alternate solutions to patient care. Nurse practitioners are one logical remedy.
VWhat Physicians Can Learn from the Allscripts EHR Lawsuit
Marisa Torrieri,  May 16, 2013
Lawsuit prompts question: What should physicians do to ensure they end up with a great EHR instead of buyer’s remorse?
Eight Ways ICD-9 Will Still Matter to Medical Practices
Brenda Edwards, CPC,  May 15, 2013
What should your medical practice do with your ICD-9-CM book after October 1, 2014? Keep it.
Seven Ways Technology Can Speed Up Patient Collections
Cheyenne Brinson,  May 15, 2013
Failing to adopt widely available billing and collections technology can cost medical practices big. Here's how to do it right.
Four Reasons Private Medical Practice is Becoming Extinct
Carol Stryker,  May 15, 2013
It’s becoming increasingly difficult for private medical practices to thrive. Here’s what’s driving the trend toward consolidation.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Skin Lesions
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • The ABCDEs of Moles and Melanomas
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation: The Current State of Our Knowledge
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • New AUA Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Genomics Studies Identify Testicular Cancer Risk Variants
  • Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
  • FDA Approves Erlotinib (Tarceva) as First-Line Lung Cancer Therapy for Certain Patients
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Patient Quality of Life Endpoints in Oncology Trials, Part II
  • Who's Coding Whom?
  • “How Do I Say This Nicely? Your Oncologist Wasn't Following Guidelines”
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Conflicts of Interest in Medicine: What About Ties to Payers?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter



CancerNetwork on Facebook

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy