Long-term results for Stage IIIB cervical cancer patients receiving external beam radiotherapy combined with either HDR 252Cf or HDR 60Co intracavitary brachytherapy

Comparative Analysis of 60Co and 192Ir Sources in High Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer

High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) is an essential treatment for cervical cancer, one of the most prevalent gynecological malignant tumors. In HDR BT, high radiation doses can be delivered to the tumor target with the minimum radiation doses to organs at risk. Despite the wide use of the small HDR 192Ir source, as the technique has improved, the HDR 60Co source, which has the same miniaturized geometry, has also been produced and put into clinical practice. Compared with 192Ir (74 days), 60Co has a longer half-life (5.3 years), which gives it a great economic advantage for developing nations. The aim of the study was to compare 60Co and 192Ir sources for HDR BT in terms of both dosimetry and clinical treatment. The results of reports published on the use of HDR BT for cervical cancer over the past few years as well as our own research show that this treatment is safe and it is feasible to use 60Co as an alternative source.

High dose rate192Ir versus high dose rate60Co brachytherapy: an overview of systematic reviews of clinical responses of gynecological cancers from 1984 to 2020

The Purpose. Radioisotope of192Iradium (192Ir) has a half-life (74 days) and is not easily accessible in developing countries. As a result, by the time source shipment clearance and the customs paperwork are completed, a large proportion of useful activity had already been decayed away. In fact,60Cobalt (60Co) remote afterloading systems are commercially available by many venders. As a result, it may well become an alternative source to192Ir and conform many of these challenges. The aim of this study is that to report clinical responses of different types of gynaecological cancers treated with high dose rate (HDR)192Ir and HDR60Co brachytherapy in order to check whether HDR60Co could be used as an alternative brachytherapy, source to HDR192Ir.Materials and Methods. A retrospective study of clinical responses of different types of gynaecological cancers, staged from I to IV according to recommendations of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), treated by brachytherapy alone, radiotherapy alone (combined brachytherapy and radiotherapy) and combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy (brachytherapy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy) between 1984 and December 2020 was conducted. The patients were treated with external beam radiotherapy 45-51 Gy boosted with HDR192Ir and HDR60Co afterloading brachytherapy of 18-30 Gy to point A.The results. The study scrutinized the data of 11086 patients with different types of gynaecological cancers. Most of the patients, 70 percent of them, were diagnosed with gynaecological cancers in stages II and III. For patients treated with192Ir brachytherapy source 5-years overall survival rate (OS), local control, 2-years, 5-years and 10-years disease free survival (DFS), complications of gastro-intestine (GI) and complications of genito-urinary (GU) were 63.5%, 92%, 72.6%, 64.07%, 43.75%, 3.9% and 5.92%, but for those treated with60Co they were 57.7%, 86.63%, 82.5%, 53.35%, 43.75%, 4.8% and 3.7%, respectively.Conclusions.The use of HDR60Co brachytherapy has the capacity to produce overall survival rate and disease control in patients with carcinoma of the gynaecology comparable to that reported for HDR192Ir brachytherapy. Currently, the toxicity and damage of the normal tissues and radiation-related second cancers are of a similar incidence to that of standard HDR192Ir brachytherapy. Source exchange frequency is not a serious concern because it requires less frequency of replacement, and commissioning can be accomplished within years; hence, replacing HDR192Ir with HDR60Co brachytherapy achieves significant cost saving. Therefore, we recommend that60Co source ought to be the first choice for low resource radiotherapy setting as it offers economic advantages over192Ir and have comparable clinical outcomes to that of192Ir source.

Neutrons are forever! Historical perspectives

Purpose: Neutrons were an active field of radiobiology at the time of publication of the first issues of the International Journal of Radiation Biology in 1959. Three back-to-back papers published by Neary and his colleagues contain key elements of interest at the time. The present article aims to put these papers into context with the discovery of the neutron 27 years previously and then give a feel for how the field has progressed to the present day. It does not intend to provide a comprehensive review of this enormous field, but rather to provide selective summaries of main driving forces and developments. Conclusions: Neutron radiobiology has continued as a vigorous field of study throughout the past 84 years. Main driving forces have included concern for protection from the harmful effects of neutrons, exploitation and optimization for cancer therapy (fast beam therapy, brachytherapy and boron capture therapy), and scientific curiosity about the mechanisms of radiation action. Effort has fluctuated as the emphasis has shifted from time to time, but all three areas remain active today. Whatever the future holds for the various types of neutron therapy, the health protection aspects will remain with us permanently because of natural environmental exposure to neutrons as well as increased additional exposures from a variety of human activities.