Early outcomes after definitive chemoradiation therapy with Vienna/Venezia hybrid high-dose rate brachytherapy applicators for cervical cancer: A single-institution experience.

PURPOSE: The Vienna and Venezia (Elekta) are hybrid intracavitary/interstitial brachytherapy (BT) applicators for cervical cancers unsuitable for intracavitary BT alone to improve target coverage or reduce critical organ dose. There is limited outcome data with the use of these applicators outside published experience of the EMBRACE group. We report feasibility and early outcomes with the use of these hybrid applicators at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Hybrid applicators were used to treat 61 patients with cervical cancer from November 2011 to December 2019. Indications for hybrid applicator use were involvement of the vagina in 10 patients (16%), residual central or parametrial disease in 46 patients (75%), and a narrow introitus in 5 patients (9%). Toxicities were graded using the CTCAE v4.0. Outcomes were assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 16 months (IQR 9-32 mos). Median HRCTV volume was 31.6 cm3 (IQR 25-48 cm3). Median HRCTV D90 was 86.1 Gy (IQR 84.3-88.0 Gy). In 54 patients with follow-up PET/CT at 3 months, complete initial imaging response locally was seen in 46 patients.Estimated 12-month Kaplan-Meier overall survival, locoregional control, distant control, and recurrence-free survival estimates were 86.9%, 80.6%, 73.8%, and 65.9%, respectively. The 12-month incidence of Grade 3+ GI/GU chronic toxicities was 5.7%, consisting of vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, and ureterovesical fistula. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-institution data support the use of the hybrid applicators, as an alternative to traditional BT applicators when clinically warranted. Use of hybrid applicators is feasible with adequate coverage of disease in the vagina and parametrium.

Reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy electron beams: comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and AAPM TG-21 dosimetry protocols.

A comparison of the determination of absorbed dose to water in reference conditions with high-energy electron beams (Enominal of 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 18 MeV) following the recommendations given in the AAPM TG-51 and in the original TG-21 dosimetry protocols has been made. Six different ionization chamber types have been used, two Farmer-type cylindrical (PTW 30001, PMMA wall; NE 2571, graphite wall) and four plane parallel (PTW Markus, and Scanditronix-Wellhöfer NACP, PPC-05 and Roos PPC-40). Depending upon the cylindrical chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 1%-3%. Approximately 1% of this difference is due to the differences in the data given in the two protocols; another 1.1%-1.2% difference is due to the change of standards, from air-kerma to absorbed dose to water. For plane-parallel chambers, absorbed doses were determined by using two chamber calibration methods: (i) direct use of the ADCL calibration factors N(60Co)D,w and Nx for each chamber type in the appropriate equations for dose determination recommended by each protocol, and (ii) cross-calibration techniques in a high-energy electron beam, as recommended by TG-21, TG-39, and TG-51. Depending upon the plane-parallel chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 0.7%-2.9% for the direct calibration procedures and by 0.8%-3.2% for the cross-calibration techniques. Measured values of photon-electron conversion kecal, for the NACP and Markus chambers were found to be 0.3% higher and 1.7% lower than the corresponding values given in TG-51. For the PPC-05 and PPC-40 (Roos) chamber types, the values of kecal were measured to be 0.889 and 0.893, respectively. The uncertainty for the entire calibration chain, starting from the calibration of the ionization chamber in the standards laboratory to the determination of absorbed dose to water in the user beam, has been analyzed for the two formalisms. For cylindrical chambers, the observed differences between the two protocols are within the estimated combined uncertainty of the ratios of absorbed doses for 6 and 8 MeV; however, at higher energies (10< or =E< or =18 MeV), the differences are larger than the estimated combined uncertainties by about 1%. For plane-parallel chambers, the observed differences are within the estimated combined uncertainties for the direct calibration technique; for the cross-calibration technique the differences are within the uncertainty estimates at low energies whereas they are comparable to the uncertainty estimates at higher energies. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors, and quantities in the two protocols, as well as the influence of the implementation of the different standards for chamber calibration.