ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of free-hand intraoperative multicatheter breast implant (FHIOMBI) and perioperative high-dose-rate brachytherapy (PHDRBT) in early breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with early breast cancer candidates for breast conservative surgery (BCS) were prospectively enrolled. Patients suitable for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) (low or intermediate risk according GEC-ESTRO criteria) received PHDRBT (3.4 Gy BID × 10 in 5 days). Patients not suitable for APBI (high risk patients according GEC-ESTRO criteria) received PHDRBT boost (3.4 Gy BID × 4 in 2 days) followed by whole breast irradiation. RESULTS: From June 2007 to November 2014, 119 patients were treated and 122 FHIOMBI procedures were performed. Median duration of FHIOMBI was 25 minutes. A median of eight catheters (range, 4-14) were used. No severe intraoperative complications were observed. Severe early postoperative complications (bleeding) were documented in 2 patients (1.6%), wound healing complications in 3 (2.4%), and infection (mastitis or abscess) in 2 (1.6%). PHDRBT was delivered as APBI in 88 cases (72.1%) and as a boost in 34 (27.8%). The median clinical target volume T was 40.8 cc (range, 12.3-160.5); median D90 was 3.32 Gy (range, 3.11-3.85); median dose homogeneity index was 0.72 (range, 0.48-0.82). With a median followup of 38.4 months (range, 8.7-98.7) no local, elsewhere, or regional relapses were observed; there was only one distant failure in PHDRBT boost. No major (acute or late) RTOG grade 3 or higher were documented in any of the 119 patients treated with PHDRBT. Cosmetic outcome in APBI patients was excellent or good in (87.0%) and fair or poor in (11.9%) while in boost patients was excellent or good in (76.4%) and fair in (23.5%). CONCLUSION: The FHIOMBI-PHDRBT program does not add complications to conservative surgery. It allows precise selection of APBI patients and offers excellent results in disease control and cosmetics. It also offers logistic advantages because it dramatically shortens the time of local treatment and avoids further invasive procedures.
Subject(s)
Brachytherapy/methods , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/therapy , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/therapy , Catheters , Mastectomy, Segmental/methods , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Brachytherapy/adverse effects , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/pathology , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/pathology , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Margins of Excision , Middle Aged , Postoperative Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Postoperative Hemorrhage/surgery , Prospective Studies , Radiation Injuries/epidemiology , Radiation Injuries/etiology , Radiotherapy Dosage , Reoperation , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Double checking of the monitor units (MU) is an important step in the quality assurance (QA) process in radiosurgery. In this paper we propose the use of an independent algorithm constructed using the ellipsoid which best fits the measurements taken with the bubble head frame. The monitor units calculated by this independent algorithm and the commercial planning system were compared in 40 patients treated with radiosurgery (57 isocenters, 320 arcs). The average relative difference was -0.2% +/- 2.1 (k=1). These results are better for the variance, -0.4% +/- 1.8 (k=1), when all the depths of the bubble head frame are measured and no arcs are calculated by extrapolation or when only one of these factors appear. If there are missing values in the bubble head frame measurements and the model is extrapolated, the variance of the results is greater, 0.4% +/- 3.9 (k=1). The algorithm is reliable as a QA tool for linac radiosurgery.
