Brachytherapy is a therapeutic modality that may provide a significant improvement in the therapeutic ratio when appropriately applied, and hence, is an appealing treatment strategy for the head and neck. For several tumor sites in the head and neck, the use of a brachytherapy implant has been demonstrated to be effective and is optimally provided within a multidisciplinary team setting. This enables meticulous attention to technical and treatment-related factors that have been demonstrated to influence the therapeutic ratio for low-dose-rate implants. Recent technologic advances have enabled the study of promising high-dose-rate and pulsed-dose-rate afterloading brachytherapy techniques, in an attempt to expand the role of brachytherapy in the head and neck. These techniques minimize radiation exposure hazards while offering the physical and biologic advantages of brachytherapy. Issues pertinent to members of the brachytherapy team providing multidisciplinary care of the implanted head and neck patient are discussed. [ONCOLOGY 16:1379-1395, 2002]
Brachytherapy has a significant role in the management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), largely due to the importance of locoregional control and the desire to minimize treatment-related functional deficits and preserve quality of life. In addition, the ongoing risk of second malignancies and locoregional recurrences in the head and neck requiring reirradiation make brachytherapy implants particularly appealing.
The use of a brachytherapy implant affords a unique approach to local dose intensification, improving the likelihood of functional organ preservation and minimizing treatment morbidity as a result of reduced irradiation to the surrounding normal tissues. In early-stage lesions, where the risk of nodal metastases is low, brachytherapy may be employed definitively or in an adjuvant fashion following surgery. In more advanced lesions, it is often combined with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of the head and neck. The ability to provide specific, intensive local irradiation also permits the selective use of brachytherapy in the setting of recurrent or second head and neck SCC occurring within a previously irradiated region.
The optimal delivery of a brachytherapy implant necessitates a collaborative multidisciplinary team approach. This should involve a radiation oncologist trained in brachytherapy techniques, a head and neck surgeon and an oncologic nurse familiar with issues specific to brachytherapy implants, a physicist trained in brachytherapy treatment planning, and a dental surgeon experienced in radiation complications and the fabrication of spacers and lead-embedded prostheses. Such a team permits a smooth and efficient integration of treatment modalities, which may influence local control rates.
This review will elaborate on the current indications for brachytherapy in the head and neck, highlighting multidisciplinary issues pertinent to achieving these therapeutic goals. Technical aspects of brachytherapy are beyond the scope of this review, and the reader is referred elsewhere.[2-7]
Appropriate application of a brachytherapy implant begins with patient selection. This requires assessment of the patient’s understanding and ability to comply with the inherent radiation precautions associated with brachytherapy implants, especially for continuous low-dose-rate implants. Patients should be selected for their ability to provide baseline self-care needs in addition to treatment-related needs, such as the care of a tracheostomy, nasogastric feeds, and a patient-controlled analgesic pump, as indicated.
Patients subject to periods of confusion and disorientation may not be suitable for this mode of therapy. The potential for alcohol or narcotic withdrawal should be addressed to avoid complications with the delivery of the implant. Age alone is not a contraindication, but associated comorbidities may preclude the older patient from complying with the additional responsibilities noted.
Considerations of the indications and the relative risk-benefit ratio of an implant require an assessment of not only the location, size, and extent of the tumor volume, but also of organ function, and hence, the appropriateness of an organ-preserving strategy. For the head and neck, attention to the status of oral/dental hygiene is important, with particular regard to the risk of mandibular osteoradionecrosis. Evaluation by a dentist familiar with these risks is mandatory. Other factors associated with an increased risk of severe soft-tissue complications include severe diabetes, liver failure, and compromised arterial status.
Permanent vs Temporary Implants
The provisional technique should then be selected to enable appropriate planning and preparation. Several considerations influence the decision as to a permanent or a temporary implant.
Permanent Implants—Permanent implants, emitting radiation over the lifetime of their radioactivity, use sources that provide low-dose-rate irradiation. Suboptimal placement of a permanent implant and the potential adverse dosimetric effects of organ swelling and movement pose potential risks for an unfavorable therapeutic ratio. However, a permanent implant affords the delivery of a very high total dose of radiation and may be advantageous when implanting complex, irregular surfaces that are not amenable to the placement of temporary catheter-based implants, ie, where chinking of the catheters is a significant risk. The judicious use of permanent radiation sources with low-energy photons, such as iodine-125, may be advantageous when critical normal structures, such as the spinal cord, are adjacent to the implant.
Temporary Implants—Temporary implants are more commonly applied in the head and neck, as they permit a more deliberate and accurate placement of the applicator system without the radiation exposure concerns associated with a permanent implant. Typically, nylon catheters are used to mimic the desired position of the radioactive sources, which are subsequently afterloaded with low-dose-rate radioactive seeds embedded at defined positions within a nylon strand.
This technique affords optimization of the implant dosimetry following placement of the implant applicator system. Commonly, this involves obtaining orthogonal plain x-rays of the implant, with dummy seeds placed within the selected applicator system and digitization of the relative seed positions into treatment-planning software. Variations in the activity, number of radioactive sources, loading duration—and for high-dose-rate computer-guided remote afterloading systems, variations in the dwell time and position—allow for dosimetric optimization. However, optimization cannot obviate the adverse dosimetry associated with poor implant geometry.
Temporary low-dose-rate implants also offer several radiobiologic advantages, including a reduced treatment time, the ability to irradiate a potentially less hypoxic tumor bed early in the postoperative period, a reduced adverse influence of hypoxia itself, and exploitation of cell-cycle-specific radiosensitization. This technique further exploits the differential repair capacities between tumor and normal tissues, reducing the risk of normal late complications. However, the risk of exposure to staff necessitates good source handling skills and strict radiation precautions.
High-Dose-Rate Implants—Alternatively, high-dose-rate sources with computer-guided remote afterloading significantly reduce the radiation exposure risks and required precautions. Fractionated radiotherapy is delivered with a single iridium-192 source fixed to the end of a guidewire that may be variably stepped along the length of each catheter.
High-dose-rate implants have greater flexibility in conforming the implant dosimetry to the target volume and yield a relatively more homogeneous dose distribution, compared to that of low-dose-rate implants. Moreover, as the delivery of the radiation occurs over a shorter time, it is less subject to the effects of organ movement. This precise geometric sparing may yield a lower complication rate. However, concerns remain regarding the risk of increased late complications from the higher dose rate of radiation. This has prompted studies to define optimal fractionation schedules to reduce this risk.
Pulsed-Dose-Rate Implants—The use of pulsed-dose-rate radiation has been studied as a technique to exploit the logistical advantages and reduced radiation exposure of remote afterloading and the low-dose-rate biologic advantages that may be mimicked by this technique.[10,11] The physical delivery system is analogous to high-dose-rate systems but with reduced source activity. Typically, a medium-dose-rate source is afterloaded to deliver radiation every hour for 10 to 30 minutes over several days. The optimal pulse size and pulse interval remains to be determined. Between pulses, radiation precautions do not need to be in effect, thereby facilitating improved treatment compliance. This technique remains promising but investigational to date.[1,12]
Intraoperative Radiation Therapy—An appealing alternative to the use of temporary implants is the use of high-dose-rate intraoperative radiation therapy. This technique has the advantage of accurately delivering radiation to the surgical bed and areas at risk of tumor recurrence, as defined at the time of the resection. In addition, intraoperative irradiation may optimize the cytotoxicity of the irradiation, as the tumor burden is at its lowest and the adverse effects of hypoxia are likely to be less influential than during the postoperative period. Optimized implant geometry results from the use of prefabricated commercially available applicator systems that maintain a uniform plane of catheters, which may then be molded to conform to curved and irregular surfaces. This modality remains investigational and limited to centers with expertise in the technique.
Surgical support is integral to the care of the implanted patient. Assessment and management of the upper aerodigestive airway is fundamental, particularly if the implant involves the pharyngeal airway or the base of the tongue, due to the potential for edema and bleeding. Coordination of the surgery and the planned brachytherapy implant is crucial for a successful implant. For permanent implants, surgical exposure of the area for implantation may be required.
Coordination of surgical approach and implant technique is required not only to optimize the implant geometry but also to reduce the risk of wound complications. For temporary implants, surgical drains and wound dressings must be placed so as not to preclude the loading and unloading of any catheters. The placement of catheters and the wound-closure technique must also be coordinated to ensure minimal tension and potential distortion of the implant geometry.
In the setting of a neck dissection or when other surgical wounds lie near implant catheters, we prefer to delay the implant loading for a minimum of 5 days postoperatively. This is due to concerns of increased wound complications resulting from irradiation of the wound before sufficient fibroblast proliferation has occurred, as has been observed in the treatment of extremity sarcomas. Although these concerns remain to be validated in the head and neck, this time is often required for treatment planning and for the patient to acclimatize to the increased self-care needs related to the surgical procedure(s), to maximize their adherence to radiation precautions.
1. Mazeron JJ, Gerbaulet A, Simon JM, et al: How to optimize therapeutic ratio in brachytherapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma? Acta Oncol 37:583-591, 1998.
2. Pierquin B, Marinello G: A Practical Manual of Brachytherapy. Madison, Wis, Medical Physics Publishing, 1997.
3. Nag S: Principles and Practice of Brachytherapy. Armonk, NY, Futura Publishing Co, Inc, 1997.
4. Nag S, Martinez-Monge R, Zhang H, et al: Simplified non-looping functional loop technique for HDR brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 48:339-341, 1998.
5. Lapeyre M, Peiffert D, Hoffstetter S, et al: Curved angiocatheter metal guide for the implantation in velo-tonsillar carcinomas. Radiother Oncol 55:81-83, 2000.
6. Marinello G, Wilson JF, Pierquin B, et al: The guide gutter or loop techniques of interstitial implantation and the Paris system of dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 4:265-273, 1985.
7. Goffinet DR, Fee WE Jr, Wells J, et al: 192Ir pharyngoepiglottic fold interstitial implants. The key to successful treatment of base tongue carcinoma by radiation therapy. Cancer 55:941-948, 1985.
8. Pernot M, Luporsi E, Hoffstetter S, et al: Complications following definitive irradiation for cancers of the oral cavity and the oropharynx (in a series of 1134 patients). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:577-585, 1997.
9. Lau HY, Hay JH, Flores AD, et al: Seven fractions of twice daily high dose-rate brachytherapy for node-negative carcinoma of the mobile tongue results in loss of therapeutic ratio. Radiother Oncol 39:15-18, 1996.
10. Strnad V, Lotter M, Grabenbauer G, et al: Early results of pulsed-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for head and neck malignancies after limited surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:27-30, 2000.
11. Levendag PC, Schmitz PI, Jansen PP, et al: Fractionated high-dose-rate and pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy: first clinical experience in squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsillar fossa and soft palate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:497-506, 1997.
12. Peiffert D, Castelain B, Thomas L, et al: Pulsed dose rate brachytherapy in head and neck cancers. Feasibility study of a French cooperative group. Radiother Oncol 58:71-75, 2001.
13. Nag S, Schuller D, Pak V, et al: Pilot study of intraoperative high dose rate brachytherapy for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 41:125-130, 1996.
14. Harrison LB, Zelefsky MJ, Armstrong JG, et al: Brachytherapy and function preservation in the localized management of soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity. Semin Radiat Oncol 3:260-269, 1993.
15. Lee AW, Law SC, Foo W, et al: Retrospective analysis of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated during 1976-1985: Survival after local recurrence [see comments]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 26:773-782, 1993.
16. Leung TW, Tung SY, Wong VY, et al: High dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Acta Oncol 35:43-47, 1996.
17. Syed AM, Puthawala AA, Damore SJ, et al: Brachytherapy for primary and recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: 20 years’ experience at Long Beach Memorial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:1311-1321, 2000.
18. Pryzant RM, Wendt CD, Delclos L, et al: Re-treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in 53 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 22:941-947, 1992.
19. Kwong DL, Wei WI, Cheng AC, et al: Long term results of radioactive gold grain implantation for the treatment of persistent and recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer 91:1105-1113, 2001.
20. Harrison LB, Sessions RB, Fass DE, et al: Nasopharyngeal brachytherapy with access via a transpalatal flap. Am J Surg 164:173-175, 1992.
21. Leung TW, Tung SY, Sze WK, et al: Salvage brachytherapy for patients with locally persistent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:405-412, 2000.
22. Teo PM, Kwan WH, Yu P, et al: A retrospective study of the role of intracavitary brachytherapy and prognostic factors determining local tumour control after primary radical radiotherapy in 903 non-disseminated nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 8:160-166, 1996.
23. Chang JT, See LC, Tang SG, et al: The role of brachytherapy in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36:1019-1024, 1996.
24. Teo PM, Leung SF, Lee WY, et al: Intracavitary brachytherapy significantly enhances local control of early T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: The existence of a dose-tumor-control relationship above conventional tumoricidal dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:445-458, 2000.
25. Teo PM, Leung SF, Fowler J, et al: Improved local control for early T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma—a tale of two hospitals. Radiother Oncol 57:155-166, 2000.
26. Tate DJ, Adler JR Jr, Chang SD, et al: Stereotactic radiosurgical boost following radiotherapy in primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Impact on local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:915-921, 1999.
27. Mazeron JJ, Marinello G, Crook J, et al: Definitive radiation treatment for early stage carcinoma of the soft palate and uvula: The indications for iridium 192 implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:1829-1837, 1987.
28. Mazeron JJ, Belkacemi Y, Simon JM, et al: Place of iridium 192 implantation in definitive irradiation of faucial arch squamous cell carcinomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27:251-257, 1993.
29. Behar RA, Martin PJ, Fee WE Jr, et al: Iridium-192 interstitial implant and external beam radiation therapy in the management of squamous cell carcinomas of the tonsil and soft palate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28:221-227, 1994.
30. Puthawala AA, Syed AM, Gates TC: Iridium-192 implants in the treatment of tonsillar region malignancies. Arch Otolaryngol 111:812-815, 1985.
31. Pernot M, Malissard L, Hoffstetter S, et al: Influence of tumoral, radiobiological, and general factors on local control and survival of a series of 361 tumors of the velotonsillar area treated by exclusive irradiation (external beam irradiation+brachytherapy or brachytherapy alone). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30:1051-1057, 1994.
32. Hoffstetter S, Marchal C, Peiffert D, et al: Treatment duration as a prognostic factor for local control and survival in epidermoid carcinomas of the tonsillar region treated by combined external beam irradiation and brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 45:141-148, 1997.
33. Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Barlocci LA, et al: The place of brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the tonsil with lingual extension. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 12:1787-1792, 1986.
34. Garrett PG, Beale FA, Cummings BJ, et al: Carcinoma of the tonsil: The effect of dose-time-volume factors on local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:703-706, 1985.
35. Esche BA, Haie CM, Gerbaulet AP, et al: Interstitial and external radiotherapy in carcinoma of the soft palate and uvula. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15:619-625, 1988.
36. Harrison LB, Zelefsky MJ, Pfister DG, et al: Detailed quality of life assessment in patients treated with primary radiotherapy for squamous cell cancer of the base of the tongue. Head Neck 19:169-175, 1997.
37. Horwitz EM, Frazier AJ, Martinez AA, et al: Excellent functional outcome in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue treated with external irradiation and interstitial iodine 125 boost. Cancer 78:948-957, 1996.
38. Harrison LB, Lee HJ, Pfister DG, et al: Long term results of primary radiotherapy with/without neck dissection for squamous cell cancer of the base of tongue. Head Neck 20:668-673, 1998.
39. Lusinchi A, Eskandari J, Son Y, et al: External irradiation plus curietherapy boost in 108 base of tongue carcinomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:1191-1197, 1989.
40. Horwitz EM, Frazier AJ, Vicini FA, et al: The impact of temporary iodine-125 interstitial implant boost in the primary management of squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Head Neck 19:219-226, 1997.
41. Crook J, Mazeron JJ, Marinello G, et al: Combined external irradiation and interstitial implantation for T1 and T2 epidermoid carcinomas of base of tongue: the Creteil experience (1971-1981). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15:105-114, 1988.
42. Regueiro CA, Millan I, de la Torre A, et al: Influence of boost technique (external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy) on the outcome of patients with carcinoma of the base of the tongue. Acta Oncol 34:225-233, 1995.
43. Puthawala AA, Syed AM, Eads DL, et al: Limited external beam and interstitial 192iridium irradiation in the treatment of carcinoma of the base of the tongue: a ten year experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 14:839-848, 1988.
44. Housset M, Baillet F, Dessard-Diana B, et al: A retrospective study of three treatment techniques for T1-T2 base of tongue lesions: surgery plus postoperative radiation, external radiation plus interstitial implantation and external radiation alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:511-516, 1987.
45. Kaylie DM, Stevens KR Jr, Kang MY, et al: External beam radiation followed by planned neck dissection and brachytherapy for base of tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 110:1633-1636, 2000.
46. Vikram B, Strong E, Shah J, et al: A non-looping afterloading technique for base of tongue implants: results in the first 20 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:1853-1855, 1985.
47. Takacsi-Nagy Z, Oberna F, Polgar C, et al: The importance of interstitial radiotherapy in the treatment of the base of tongue tumors: A retrospective analysis. Neoplasma 48:76-81, 2001.
48. Decroix Y, Ghossein NA: Experience of the Curie Institute in treatment of cancer of the mobile tongue: I. Treatment policies and result. Cancer 47:496-502, 1981.
49. Miura M, Takeda M, Sasaki T, et al: Factors affecting mandibular complications in low dose rate brachytherapy for oral tongue carcinoma with special reference to spacer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:763-770, 1998.
50. Mazeron JJ, Crook JM, Benck V, et al: Iridium 192 implantation of T1 and T2 carcinomas of the mobile tongue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19:1369-1376, 1990.
51. Pernot M, Malissard L, Hoffstetter S, et al: The study of tumoral, radiobiological, and general health factors that influence results and complications in a series of 448 oral tongue carcinomas treated exclusively by irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:673-679, 1994.
52. Pernot M, Malissard L, Aletti P, et al: Iridium-192 brachytherapy in the management of 147 T2N0 oral tongue carcinomas treated with irradiation alone: comparison of two treatment techniques. Radiother Oncol 23:223-228, 1992.
53. Akine Y, Tokita N, Ogino T, et al: Stage I-II carcinoma of the anterior two-thirds of the tongue treated with different modalities: a retrospective analysis of 244 patients. Radiother Oncol 21:24-28, 1991.
54. Shibuya H, Hoshina M, Takeda M, et al: Brachytherapy for stage I & II oral tongue cancer: an analysis of past cases focusing on control and complications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 26:51-58, 1993.
55. Benk V, Mazeron JJ, Grimard L, et al: Comparison of curietherapy versus external irradiation combined with curietherapy in stage II squamous cell carcinomas of the mobile tongue [see comments]. Radiother Oncol 18:339-347, 1990.
56. Wendt CD, Peters LJ, Delclos L, et al: Primary radiotherapy in the treatment of stage I and II oral tongue cancers: importance of the proportion of therapy delivered with interstitial therapy [see comments]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:1287-1292, 1990.
57. Horiuchi J, Okuyama T, Shibuya H, et al: Results of brachytherapy for cancer of the tongue with special emphasis on local prognosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 8:829-835, 1982.
58. Inoue T, Teshima T, Murayama S, et al: Phase III trial of high and low dose rate interstitial radiotherapy for early oral tongue cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36:1201-1204, 1996.
59. Mazeron JJ, Crook JM, Marinello G, et al: Prognostic factors of local outcome for T1, T2 carcinomas of oral tongue treated by iridium 192 implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19:281-285, 1990.
60. Mendenhall WM, Parsons JT, Stringer SP, et al: T2 oral tongue carcinoma treated with radiotherapy: analysis of local control and complications. Radiother Oncol 16:275-281, 1989.
61. Fu KK, Chan EK, Phillips TL, et al: Time, dose and volume factors in interstitial Radium implants of carcinoma of the oral tongue. Radiology 119:209-213, 1976.
62. Leung TW, Wong VY, Wong CM, et al: High dose rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the oral tongue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:1113-1120, 1997.
63. Lapeyre M, Hoffstetter S, Peiffert D, et al: Postoperative brachytherapy alone for T1-2 N0 squamous cell carcinomas of the oral tongue and floor of mouth with close or positive margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:37-42, 2000.
64. Ange DW, Lindberg RD, Guillamondegui OM: Mangement of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue and floor of mouth after excisional biopsy. Radiology 116:143-146, 1975.
65. Mendenhall WM, Parsons JT, Stringer SP, et al: Radiotherapy after excisional biopsy of carcinoma of the oral tongue/floor of the mouth. Head Neck 11:129-131, 1989.
66. Brown M, Hu K, Harrison L: Adjuvant interstitial brachytherapy for resected T1 and T2 cancer of the oral cavity with close or positive margins, American Brachytherapy Society Proceedings, p 69. Vancouver, British Columbia, 2001.
67. Pernot M, Hoffstetter S, Peiffert D, et al: Role of interstitial brachytherapy in oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma: Reflection of a series of 1344 patients treated at the time of initial presentation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115:519-526, 1996.
68. Mazeron JJ, Grimard L, Raynal M, et al: Iridium-192 curietherapy for T1 and T2 epidermoid carcinomas of the floor of mouth. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:1299-1306, 1990.
69. Pernot M, Hoffstetter S, Peiffert D, et al: Epidermoid carcinomas of the floor of mouth treated by exclusive irradiation: statistical study of a series of 207 cases. Radiother Oncol 35:177-185, 1995.
70. Inoue T, Yamazaki H, Koizumi M, et al: High dose rate versus low dose rate interstitial radiotherapy for carcinoma of the floor of mouth. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:53-58, 1998.
71. Lapeyre M, Peiffert D, Hoffstetter S, et al: Post-operative brachytherapy: a prognostic factor for local control in epidermoid carcinomas of the mouth floor. Eur J Surg Oncol 23:243-246, 1997.
72. Jorgensen K, Elbrond O, Andersen AP: Carcinoma of the lip. A series of 869 cases. Acta Radiol Ther Phys Biol 12:177-190, 1973.
73. Tombolini V, Bonanni A, Valeriani M, et al: Brachytherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the lip. The experience of the Institute of Radiology of the University of Rome "La Sapienza". Tumori 84:478-482, 1998.
74. de Visscher JG, Grond AJ, Botke G, et al: Results of radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the vermilion border of the lower lip. A retrospective analysis of 108 patients. Radiother Oncol 39:9-14, 1996.
75. Beauvois S, Hoffstetter S, Peiffert D, et al: Brachytherapy for lower lip epidermoid cancer: tumoral and treatment factors influencing recurrences and complications. Radiother Oncol 33:195-203, 1994.
76. Orecchia R, Rampino M, Gribaudo S, et al: Interstitial brachytherapy for carcinomas of the lower lip. Results of treatment. Tumori 77:336-338, 1991.
77. Eisbruch A, Dawson L: Re-irradiation of head and neck tumors. Benefits and toxicities. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 13:825-836, 1999.
78. Stafford N, Dearnaley D: Treatment of ‘inoperable’ neck nodes using surgical clearance and postoperative interstitial irradiation. Br J Surg 75:62-64, 1988.
79. Moscoso JF, Urken ML, Dalton J, et al: Simultaneous interstitial radiotherapy with regional or free-flap reconstruction, following salvage surgery of recurrent head and neck carcinoma. Analysis of complications. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120:965-972, 1994.
80. Chen KY, Mohr RM, Silverman CL: Interstitial iodine 125 in advanced recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck with follow-up evaluation of carotid artery by ultrasound. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105:955-961, 1996.
81. Lee DJ, Liberman FZ, Park RI, et al: Intraoperative I-125 seed implantation for extensive recurrent head and neck carcinomas. Radiology 178:879-882, 1991.
82. Park RI, Liberman FZ, Lee DJ, et al: Iodine-125 seed implantation as an adjunct to surgery in advanced recurrent squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. Laryngoscope 101:405-410, 1991.
83. Vikram B, Strong EW, Shah JP, et al: Intraoperative radiotherapy in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer. Am J Surg 150:485-487, 1985.
84. Peiffert D, Pernot M, Malissard L, et al: Salvage irradiation by brachytherapy of velotonsillar squamous cell carcinoma in a previously irradiated field: results in 73 cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:681-686, 1994.
85. Pernot M, Malissard L, Taghian A, et al: Velotonsillar squamous cell carcinoma: 277 cases treated by combined external irradiation and brachytherapy—results according to extension, localization, and dose rate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23:715-723, 1992.
86. Stevens KR Jr, Britsch A, Moss WT: High-dose reirradiation of head and neck cancer with curative intent. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:687-698, 1994.
87. Langlois D, Hoffstetter S, Pernot M: Selection of patients for re-irradiation with local implants in carcinomas of oropharynx and tongue. Acta Oncol 27:571-573, 1988.
88. Housset M, Baillet F, Delanian S, et al: Split course interstitial brachytherapy with a source shift: The results of a new iridium implant technique versus single course implants for salvage irradiation of base of tongue cancers in 55 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20:965-971, 1991.
89. Weichselbaum RR, Beckett MA, Schwartz JL, et al: Radioresistant tumor cells are present in head and neck carcinomas that recur after radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15:575-579, 1988.
90. Mazeron JJ, Langlois D, Glaubiger D, et al: Salvage irradiation of oropharyngeal cancers using iridium 192 wire implants: 5-year results of 70 cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:957-962, 1987.
91. Levendag PC, Meeuwis CA, Visser AG: Reirradiation of recurrent head and neck cancers: external and/or interstitial radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 23:6-15, 1992.
92. Pernot M, Aletti P, Carolus JM, et al: Indications, techniques and results of postoperative brachytherapy in cancer of the oral cavity. Radiother Oncol 35:186-192, 1995.
93.Beitler JJ, Smith RV, Silver CE, et al: Close or positive margins after surgical resection for the head and neck cancer patient: the addition of brachytherapy improves local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:313-317, 1998.
94.Vikram B, Mishra S: Permanent iodine-125 implants in postoperative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer with positive surgical margins. Head Neck 16:155-157, 1994.