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. 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. 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.
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, 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. 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
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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
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
1. Keynes G: The treatment of primary carcinoma of the breast
with radium. Acta Radiol 10:393-402, 1929.
2. Harris JR, Botnick L, Bloomer WD, et al: Primary radiation
therapy for early breast cancer: The experience at the Joint Center for
Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 7:1549-1552, 1981.
3. Pierquin B, Owen R, Maylin C, et al: Radical radiation
therapy of breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 6:17-24, 1980.
4. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, et al: Five-year results of a
randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy
with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med
5. Kuske RR, Bolton JS, Wilenzick RM, et al: Brachytherapy as
the sole method of breast irradiation in TIS, T1, T2, N0-1 breast cancer. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30(S1):245, 1994.
6. Ribeiro GG, Magee B, Swindell R, et al: The Christie Hospital
Breast Conservation Trial: An update at 8 years from inception. Clin Oncol
7. Vicini FA, Chen PY, Fraile M, et al: Low-dose-rate
brachytherapy as the sole radiation modality in the management of patients with
early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: Preliminary
results of a pilot trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:301-310, 1997.
8. Kuske RR, Bolton JS, Hanson W: RTOG 95-17: A phase I/II trial
to evaluate brachytherapy as the sole method of radiation therapy for stage I
and II breast carcinoma. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, pp 1-34.
9. Carlson RW, Goldstein LJ, Gradishar WJ, et al: Update of the
NCCN guidelines for treatment of breast cancer. Oncology 11(11A):199-220, 1999.
10. Kuske RR Jr: Breast brachytherapy. Hematol Oncol Clin North
Am 13(3):543-558, 1999.
11. Sedlmayre F, Rahim HBK, Kogelnik HD, et al: Quality
assurance in breast cancer brachytherapy: Geographic miss in the interstitial
boost treatment of the tumor bed. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 34:1133-1139,
12. Vicini FA, Jaffray DA, Horwitz EM: Implementation of
3D-virtual brachytherapy in the management of breast cancer: A description of a
new method of interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
13. Fentiman IS, Poole C, Tong D, et al: Inadequacy of iridium
implant as sole radiation treatment for operable breast cancer. Eur J Cancer
14. Fentiman IS, Poole C, Tong D, et al: Iridium implant
treatment without external radiotherapy for operable breast cancer: A pilot
study. Eur J Cancer 27(4):447-450, 1991.
15. Thomadsen B, Ayyangar K, Anderson L, et al: Brachytherapy
treatment planning, in Nag S (ed): Principles and Practice of Brachytherapy, pp
127-199. Armonk, NY, Futura Publishing Co, 1997.
16. Zwicker RD, Arthur DW, Kavanagh BD, et al: Optimization of
planar high dose rate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44:1171-1177, 1999.
17. Zwicker RD, Schmidt-Ullrich R, Schiller B: Planning of
Ir-192 seed implants for boost irradiation to the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 11:2163-2170, 1985.
18. Kutcher GK, Coia L, Gillin M, et al: Comprehensive QA for
radiation oncology: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group
40. Med Phys 21:581-618, 1994.
19. Nath R, Anderson LL, Meli JA, et al: Code of practice for
brachytherapy physics: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group
No. 56 Med Phys 24:1557-1598, 1997.
20. Glasgow GP, Bourland JD, Grigsby PW, et al: Remote
Afterloading Technology: A Report of AAPM Task Group No. 41. New York, American
Institute of Physics, 1993.
21. Kubo HD, Glasgow GP, Pethel TD, et al: High dose rate
brachytherapy treatment delivery: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee
Task Group No. 59. Med Phys 25:375-403, 1998.
22. Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G, et al: Dosimetry of
interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation
Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. Med Phys 22:209-234, 1995.
23. Paterson R, Parker HM: Radium dosage: The Manchester System,
pp 6-38. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1949.
24. Vicini FA, Kestin LL, Edmundson GK, et al: Dose-volume
analysis for quality assurance of interstitial brachytherapy for breast cancer.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45(3):803-810, 1999.
25. Pierquin B, Dutreix CH, Paine D, et al: The Paris System in
interstitial radiation therapy. Acta Radiol Oncol Radiat Phys Biol 17:33-48,
26. Saw CB, Suntharalingam N: Reference dose rates for single
and double plane Ir-192 implants. Med Phys 15:391-396, 1988.
27. Waterman FM, Mansfield CM, Komarnicky L, et al: A dosimetry
system for Ir-192 interstitial breast implants performed at the time of
lumpectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:229-235, 1997.
28. Wong VYW, Leung TW, Wong CM: Relative dose uniformity
assessment in interstitial implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44:1179-1184,
29. Zwicker RD, Schmidt-Ullrich R: Dose uniformity in a planar
interstitial implant system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:149-155, 1994.
30. ICRU Report 58: Dose and volume specification for reporting
interstitial therapy. Bethesda, Md, International Commission on Radiation Units
and Measurements, 1997.
31. Fisher B, Anderson S: Conservative surgery for the
management of invasive and non-invasive carcinoma of the breast: NSABP trials.
World J Surg 18:63-69, 1994.
32. Fowble B, Solin LJ, Schultz DJ, et al: Breast recurrence
following conservative surgery and radiation: Patterns of failure, prognosis,
and pathologic findings from mastectomy specimens with implications for
treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19:833-842, 1990.
33. Clark RM, McCulloch PB, Levine MN, et al: Randomized
clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of breast irradiation following
lumpectomy and axillary dissection for node-negative breast cancer. J Natl
Cancer Inst 84:683-689, 1992.
34. Fisher ER, Sass R, Fisher B, et al: Pathologic findings from
the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (Protocol 6): II. Relation of
local breast recurrence to multicentricity. Cancer 57:1717-1724, 1986.
35. Liljegren G, Holmberg L, Adami H-O, et al: Sector resection
with or without postoperative radiotherapy for stage I breast cancer: Five-year
results of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:717-722, 1994.
36. Veronesi U, Salvadori B, Luini A, et al: Conservative
treatment of early breast cancer: Long-term results of 1,232 cases treated with
quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy. Ann Surg 211:250-259,
37. Fisher B, Redmond C: Lumpectomy for breast cancer: An update
of the NSABP experience. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. J
Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 11:7-13, 1992.
38. Cionini L, Pacini P, Marzano S, et al: Exclusive
brachytherapy after conservative surgery in cancer of the breast. Lyon Chir
39. Perera F, Chisela F, Engel J, et al: Method of localization
and implantation of the lumpectomy site for high dose rate brachytherapy after
conservative surgery for T1 and T2 breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
40. Perera F, Engel J, Holliday R, et al: Local resection and
brachytherapy confined to the lumpectomy site for early breast cancer: A pilot
study. J Surg Oncol 65:263-267, 1997.
41. Polgar C, Major T, Somogyi A, et al: Brachytherapy of the
tumor bed after breast conserving surgery: New radiotherapeutic option in the
management of early breast cancer. Orv Hetil 140:1461-1466, 1999.
42. Rowland CG, Ingham D, Cook S, et al: Breast conservation:
High dose rate breast implants. Activity: Selectron Users Newsletter 2:1-2,
43. Vicini FA, Kini VR, Chen P, et al: Irradiation of the tumor
bed alone after lumpectomy in selected patients with early-stage breast cancer
treated with breast conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol 70:33-40, 1999.
44. National Institutes for Health Consensus Conference:
Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 265:391-395, 1991.
45. Veronesi U, Banfi A, Salvadori B, et al: Breast conservation
is the treatment of choice in small breast cancer: Long-term results of a
randomized trial. Eur J Cancer 26:668-670, 1990.
46. Vicini F, Recht A, Abner A, et al: Recurrence in the breast
following treatment of patients with early stage breast cancer with conservative
surgery and radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 11:33-39, 1992.
47. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Recht A, et al: Breast relapse
following primary radiation therapy for early breast cancer. II. Detection of
pathologic features and prognostic significance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
48. Schmidt-Ullrich R, Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, et al: Breast
conservation therapy for early-stage breast carcinoma with outstanding 10-year
locoregional control rates: A case for aggressive therapy to the tumor-bearing
quadrant. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 7:545-552, 1993.
49. Schmidt-Ullrich R, Wazer DE, Tercilla O, et al: Tumor margin
assessment as a guide to optimal conservation surgery and irradiation in early
stage breast carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:733-738, 1989.
50. Rosen PP, Fracchia AA, Urban JA, et al: Residual mammary
carcinoma following simulated partial mastectomy. Cancer 35:739-747, 1975.
51. Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E, et al: Pathologic findings
from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of
Protocol B-17: Intraductal carcinoma. Cancer 86:429-438, 1999.
52. Deore SM, Sarin R, Dinshaw KA, et al: Influence of dose rate
and dose per fraction on clinical outcome of breast cancer treated by external
beam irradiation plus irridium-192 implants: Analysis of 289 cases. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 26:601-606, 1993.
53. Nag S, Gupta N: A simple method of obtaining equivalent
doses for use in HDR brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:507-513,
54. Orton CG: Radiobiology, in Nag S (ed): Principles and
Practice of Brachytherapy, pp 27-45. Armonk, NY, Futura Publishing Co, 1997.
55. Romestaing P, Lehingue Y, Carrie C, et al: Role of a 10 Gy
boost in the conservative treatment of early breast cancer: Results of a
randomized clinical trial in Lyon, France. J Clin Oncol 15:963-968, 1997.
56. Tessier E, Héry M, Remaioli A, et al: Intérêt du
complément d’irradiation du lit tumoral dans le traitement conservateur du
lit tumoral dans le traitement conservateur: Résultat à 6 ans d’un essai
randomisé. Cancer Radiother 2:484, 1998.
57. Wazer DE, Kramer B, Schmidt C, et al: Factors determining
outcome in patients treated with interstitial implantation as a radiation boost
for breast conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:381-393, 1997.
58. Mansfield CM, Komarnicky LT, Schwartz GF, et al: Ten-year
results in 1,070 patients with stages I and II breast cancer treated by
conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 75:2328-2336, 1995.
59. Perez CA, Taylor ME, Halverson K, et al: Brachytherapy or
electron beam boost in conservation therapy of carcinoma of the breast: A
nonrandomized comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 34(5):995-1007, 1996.
60. Recht A, Triedman SA, Harris JR: The ‘boost’ in the
treatment of early-stage breast cancer: Electrons versus interstitial implants:
The role of high energy electrons in the treatment of cancer. Front Radiat Ther
Oncol 25:27-45; 169-179, 1991.
61. Vicini FA, Horwitz EM, Lacerna MD, et al: Long-term outcome
with interstitial brachytherapy in the management of patients with early-stage
breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 37:845-852, 1997.
62. de la Rochefordiere A, Abner AL, Silver B, et al: Are
cosmetic results following conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early
breast cancer dependent upon technique? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
63. Hennequin C, Durdux C, Espie M, et al: High-dose-rate
brachytherapy for early breast cancer: An ambulatory technique. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 45:85-90, 1999.
64. Mazeron JJ, Simon JM, Crook J, et al: Influence of dose rate
on local control of breast carcinoma treated by external beam irradiation plus
iridium-192 implant. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21(5):1173-1177, 1991.
65. McCormick B, Wesson MF, Cox L, et al: Iridium-192 implants
for primary breast cancer: Experience with placement at the time of wide local
excision. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15:745-748, 1988.
66. Pierquin B, Huart J, Raynal M, et al: Conservative treatment
for breast cancer: Long-term results (15 years). Radiother Oncol 20:16-23, 1991.
67. Sarin R, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK, et al: Therapeutic
factors influencing the cosmetic outcome and late complications in the
conservative management of early stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 27(2):285-292, 1993.
68. Touboul E, Belkacemi Y, Lefranc, et al: Early breast cancer:
Influence of type of boost (electrons vs iridium-192 implant) on local control
and cosmesis after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol
69. Manning MA, Arthur DW, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, et al: Interstitial high dose rate brachytherapy boost: The
feasibility and cosmetic
outcome of a fractionated outpatient delivery scheme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 48:1301-1306, 2000.
70. Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, et al: Factors
influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery
and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 10:356-363,
71. Olivetto LA, Rose MA, Osteen RT, et al: Late cosmetic
outcome after conservative surgery and radiotherapy: Analysis of causes of
cosmetic failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:747-753, 1989.
72. de Pree C, Popowski Y, Weber D, et al: Feasibility and
tolerance of pulsed-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 43(5):971-976, 1999.
73. Warmelink C, Ezzell G, Orton C: Use of a
time-dose-fractionation model to design high dose rate fractionation schemes, in
Mould RF (ed): Brachytherapy 2. Leersum, The Netherlands, Nucletron
International BV, 1989.
74. Maulard C, Housset M, Brunel P, et al: Use of peri-operative
or split-course interstitial brachytherapy techniques for salvage irradiation of
isolated local recurrences after conservative management of breast cancer. Am J
Clin Oncol 18:348-352, 1995.
75. Nag S: The evolving role of brachytherapy in breast cancer.
Am J Clin Oncol 18(4):353-357, 1995.
76. Clarke DH, Vicini FA, Jacobs H, et al: High dose rate
brachytherapy for breast cancer, in Nag S (ed): High Dose Rate Brachytherapy: A
Textbook, pp 321-329. Armonk, NY, Futura Publishing Co, 1994.