Results of image guided brachytherapy for stage IB cervical cancer in the RetroEMBRACE study

Exclusion of non-Involved uterus from the target volume (EXIT-trial): An individualized treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer using modern radiotherapy and imaging techniques followed by completion surgery

Background and purpose

Chemoradiotherapy followed by brachytherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). In this study, we postulate that omitting an iconographical unaffected uterus (+12 mm distance from the tumour) from the treatment volume is safe and that no tumour will be found in the non-targeted uterus (NTU) leading to reduction of high-dose volumes of surrounding organs at risk (OARs).

Material and Methods

In this single-arm phase 2 study, two sets of target volumes were delineated: one standard-volume (whole uterus) and an EXIT-volume (exclusion of non-tumour-bearing parts of the uterus with a minimum 12 mm margin from the tumour). All patients underwent chemoradiotherapy targeting the EXIT-volume, followed by completion hysterectomy. In 15 patients, a plan comparison between two treatment plans (PTV vs PTV_EXIT) was performed. The primary endpoint was the pathological absence of tumour involvement in the non-targeted uterus (NTU). Secondary endpoints included dosimetric impact of target volume reduction on OARs, acute and chronic toxicity, overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

In all 21 (FIGO stage I: 2; II: 14;III: 3; IV: 2) patients the NTU was pathologically negative. Ssignificant reductions in Dmean in bladder, sigmoid and rectum; V15Gy in sigmoid and rectum, V30Gy in bladder, sigmoid and rectum; V40Gy and V45Gy in bladder, bowel bag, sigmoid and rectum; V50Gy in rectum were achieved. Median follow-up was 54 months (range 7-79 months). Acute toxicity was mainly grade 2 and 5 % grade 3 urinary. The 3y- OS, PFS and LRFS were respectively 76,2%, 64,9% and 81 %.

Conclusion

MRI-based exclusion of the non-tumour-bearing parts of the uterus at a minimum distance of 12 mm from the tumour out of the target volume in LACC can be done without risk of residual disease in the NTU, leading to a significant reduction of the volume of surrounding OARS treated to high doses.

Interstitial needles versus intracavitary applicators only for locally advanced cervical cancer: results from real-life dosimetric comparisons

Background and purpose

Image-guided adapted brachytherapy (IGABT) is superior to other radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). We aimed to investigate the benefit of interstitial needles (IN) for a combined intracavitary/interstitial (IC/IS) approach using IGABT over the intracavitary approach (IC) alone in patients with LACC after concomitant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

We included consecutive patients with LACC who were treated with IC/IS IGABT after radiochemotherapy (RCT) in our retrospective, observational study. Dosimetric gain and sparing of organs at risk (OAR) were investigated by comparing the IC/IS IGABT plan with a simulated plan without needle use (IC IGABT plan) and the impact of other clinical factors on the benefit of IC/IS IGABT.

Results

Ninety-nine patients were analyzed, with a mean EBRT dose of 45.5 ± 1.7 Gy; 97 patients received concurrent chemotherapy. A significant increase in median D90% High Risk Clinical target volume (HR-CTV) was found for IC/IS (82.8 Gy) vs IC (76.2 Gy) (p < 10-4). A significant decrease of the delivered dose for all OAR was found for IC/IS vs IC for median D2cc to the bladder (77.2 Gy), rectum (68 Gy), sigmoid (53.2 Gy), and small bowel (47 Gy) (all p < 10-4).

Conclusion

HR-CTV coverage was higher with IC/IS IGABT than with IC IGABT, with lower doses to the OAR in patients managed for LACC after RCT. Interstitial brachytherapy in the management of LACC after radiotherapy provides better coverage of the target volumes, this could contribute to better local control and improved survival of patients.

Increasing global accessibility to high-level treatments for cervical cancers

Human papillomaviruses (HPV)-related gynecological cancers are a major health care issue, and a leading cause of cancer death in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In 2020, the World Health Organization launched a program aimed at cervical cancer elimination, by screening and vaccination strategies. Offering the best possible care to women diagnosed with invasive cancer is a complementary objective. Treatment of cervical cancer as per modern standards is complex and multimodal, mainly relying on surgery, external-beam radiotherapy (+/-chemotherapy) and brachytherapy. In parallel with the pivotal role of multidisciplinary discussion, international societies provide guidance to define the most effective and least toxic anti-cancer strategy, homogenize treatment protocols and provide benchmark quality indicators as a basis for accreditation processes. The challenge is to offer the appropriate diagnostic workup and treatment upfront and to avoid non- evidence-based treatment that consumes resources, impairs quality of life (QoL), and compromises oncological outcome. Various strategies may be applied for improving treatment quality: development of surgical mentorship, companion-training programs and international cooperation. The lack of radiotherapy/brachytherapy facilities is a major concern in LMIC. Reinforcing international support in terms of education, training, research and development and technical cooperation with national projects is required to increase access to minimum requirements but also introduce modern techniques, upgrade radiotherapy/brachytherapy services, and expand access to modern systemic treatments. In countries with robust economies, compliance to standards should also be increased. Integrative cancer care and multidisciplinary approaches are needed to tackle the dual challenge of increasing cure rates while minimizing QoL impairment. Appropriate dimensioning of the resources to avoid harmful treatment delays and access to expert referral centers is also a priority.

Does the sequence of high-dose rate brachytherapy boost and IMRT for prostate cancer impact early toxicity outcomes? Results from a single institution analysis

•

The optimal sequence of HDR-BT boost and EBRT for prostate cancer is unclear.

•

We compared early toxicity based on the timing of HDR-BT boost.

•

The timing of HDR-BT was not based on any specific patient or clinical factors.

•

We found no difference in early GI/GU toxicity between the two groups.

•

Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate late toxicity and long-term disease control.

Background

We present the first report comparing early toxicity outcomes with high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost upfront versus intensity modulated RT (IMRT) upfront combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as definitive management for intermediate risk or higher prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials

We reviewed all non-metastatic prostate cancer patients who received HDR-BT boost from 2014 to 2019. HDR-BT boost was offered to patients with intermediate-risk disease or higher. ADT use and IMRT target volume was based on NCCN risk group. IMRT dose was typically 45 Gy in 25 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles ± pelvic lymph nodes. HDR-BT dose was 15 Gy in 1 fraction, delivered approximately 3 weeks before or after IMRT. The sequence was based on physician preference. Biochemical recurrence was defined per ASTRO definition. Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicity was graded per CTCAE v5.0. Pearson Chi-squared test and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare toxicity rates. P-value < 0.05 was significant.

Results

Fifty-eight received HDR-BT upfront (majority 2014–2016) and 57 IMRT upfront (majority 2017–2018). Median follow-up was 26.0 months. The two cohorts were well-balanced for baseline patient/disease characteristics and treatment factors. There were differences in treatment sequence based on the year in which patients received treatment. Overall, rates of grade 3 or higher GI or GU toxicity were <1%. There was no significant difference in acute or late GI or GU toxicity between the two groups.

Conclusion

We found no significant difference in GI/GU toxicity in intermediate-risk or higher prostate cancer patients receiving HDR-BT boost upfront versus IMRT upfront combined with ADT. These findings suggest that either approach may be reasonable. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate late toxicity and long-term disease control.