Braquiterapia endoluminal HDR no tratamento de tumores primários ou recidivas na árvore traqueobrônquica

Systematic review of brachytherapy for symptom palliation

PURPOSE

Brachytherapy is most often applied in the curative or salvage setting, but many forms of brachytherapy can be helpful for symptom palliation. Declining utilization is seen, for multiple reasons, such as lack of awareness, insufficient expertise, or poor access to equipment. High level evidence for many types of palliative brachytherapy has been lacking. The objective of the current study was to review the evidence for utilization and efficacy of brachytherapy to palliate symptoms from cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search in EMBASE and MEDLINE for English-language articles published from January 1980 to May 2022 that described brachytherapy used for a palliative indication in adults with a diagnosis of cancer (any subtype) and at least one symptom related outcome. Individual case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. All publications were independently screened by two investigators for eligibility.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 3637 abstracts of which 129 were selected for in-depth review. The number of studies (total number of patients) included in the final analysis varied widely by tumor site with the majority (68.2%) involving either lung or esophageal cancer. Despite a limited number of prospective trials that assessed the efficacy of brachytherapy for symptom management, there was a positive effect on palliation of symptoms across all tumor types. There was no clear trend in the number of publications over time. The most commonly cited symptom indications for palliation by brachytherapy were dysphagia, dyspnea, pain and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Brachytherapy can provide palliation for patients with advanced cancer, across different tumor sites and clinical scenarios. However, high level evidence in the literature to support palliative applications of brachytherapy is lacking or limited for many tumor sites. There appears to be a strong publication bias towards positive studies in favor of brachytherapy. Beyond anecdotal reports and individual practices, outcomes research can further our understanding of the role of brachytherapy in palliating advanced cancers of all types, and should be encouraged.

First clinical implementation of the Capri applicator

This study was to assess the Capri applicator for patients with endometrial cancer undergoing high‐radiation dose treatments following external‐beam radiation therapy. The Capri applicator is an inflatable vaginal cylinder with multiple channels. It is used to tailor the dose distribution to an asymmetric vaginal disease, and better spare organs at risk. Five patients with high‐risk endometrial cancer were selected for this study. The patients were treated with a high dose of radiation using the Capri applicator: daily fraction of 7 Gy was prescribed for a total dose of 21 Gy. The treatment plans included radiobiological parameters such as equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and tumor control probability (TCP). Based on the dose‐volume histograms (DVH), we also calculated four quality factors: conformity index (CI), dose homogeneity index (DHI), dose nonuniformity index (DNR), and overdose index (OI). The TCP values range from 82.26% to 95.92%. Very low values of NTCP were observed for the bladder and rectum. The EUDs to organs at risk ranged from 4.65 Gy to 18.22 Gy for the bladder, and from 3.41 Gy from to 6.56 Gy for the rectum. The mean CI was 1.05(SD=0.0008). The mean DNR was 0.10(range0.0−0.295,SD=0.100). The mean OI was 0.019(SD=0.028). The DHIs were in the range of 1.0−0.754(mean0.886,SD=0.116). The use of a multichannel vaginal cylinder may not only help cover extensive vaginal disease, but also reduce the dose to the rectum. This dosimetric analysis shows that rectal doses could be reduced using a multichannel cylinder. However, the dose delivered to the bladder based on EUD calculation may be higher than that obtained with other methods. Each patient must be evaluated independently to determine if a multichannel treatment is appropriate. Clinical followup will show whether this rectal dose sparing translates into a real toxicity improvement.

PACS number: 3.6.96.0