Determining the impact of pre-radiation treatment verification simulation/dry run by analyzing intradepartmental reported incidents and surveying staff and patients.

PURPOSE: Error identification in radiation therapy is critical to maintain a safe and efficient therapeutic environment. A verification simulation (VS; also called a dry run for patient information) provides a dedicated time prior to treatment to duplicate steps of patient setup, imaging, and treatment process as a final quality assurance step. Through the use of surveys and analysis of reported incidents, we sought to determine the value of a VS before initiating patient treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In November 2014, a VS was instituted across our network of 11 radiation oncology clinics. A comparison of the incident rate reported through our departmental incident learning system (ILS) was made between a non-VS group (965 patients who were treated in the 18 months prior to instituting the VS) and a VS group (984 patients who were treated over 18 months with the VS policy in place). From August to December 2016, surveys were completed by 211 patients and 55 physicians, nurses, and therapists detailing their perspectives on the VS. RESULTS: There were 28 incidents (2.9%) in the non-VS group compared with 18 incidents (1.8%) in the VS group (P = .03). In the VS group, more incidents were detected before the day of treatment (P = .03) and fewer incidents on the day of treatment (P = .02). In addition, a trend toward fewer incidents after treatment started (P = .09) was observed. Patient surveys indicated that 99.5% of patients were informed of the VS, 83% reported decreased anxiety during treatment, and 5% indicated concerns about delaying treatment. The majority of staff members (67%) were satisfied with the VS. CONCLUSIONS: A VS helps identify and correct incidents before the administration of radiation therapy and reduces patient anxiety.

Hypofractionated image guided radiation therapy followed by prostate seed implant boost for men with newly diagnosed intermediate and high risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Preliminary results of a phase 2 prospective study.

PURPOSE: A phase 2 protocol was designed and implemented to assess the toxicity and efficacy of hypofractionated image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) combined with low-dose rate 103Pd prostate seed implant for treatment of localized intermediate- and high-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a report of an interim analysis on 24 patients enrolled on an institutional review board-approved phase 2 single-institution study of patients with intermediate- and high-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The median pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level was 8.15 ng/mL. The median Gleason score was 4 + 3 = 7 (range, 3 + 4 = 7 - 4 + 4 = 8), and the median T stage was T2a. Of the 24 patients, 4 (17%) were high-risk patients as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria, version 2016. The treatment consisted of 2465 cGy in 493 cGy/fraction of IG-IMRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles. This was followed by a 103Pd transperineal prostate implant boost (prescribed dose to 90% of the prostate volume of 100 Gy) using intraoperative planning. Five patients received neoadjuvant, concurrent, and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 18 months (range, 1-42 months). The median nadir prostate-specific antigen was 0.5 ng/mL and time to nadir was 16 months. There was 1 biochemical failure associated with distant metastatic disease without local failure. Toxicity (acute or late) higher than grade 3 was not observed. There was a single instance of late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity secondary to hematuria 2 years and 7 months after radiation treatment. There were no other grade 3 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Early results on the toxicity and efficacy of the combination of hypofractionated IG-IMRT and low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost are favorable. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm safety and effectiveness.

Consequences and countermeasures in a nuclear power accident: Chernobyl experience.

Despite the tragic accidents in Fukushima and Chernobyl, the nuclear power industry will continue to contribute to the production of electric energy worldwide until there are efficient and sustainable alternative sources of energy. The Chernobyl nuclear accident, which occurred 26 years ago in the former Soviet Union, released an immense amount of radioactivity over vast territories of Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation, extending into northern Europe, and became the most severe accident in the history of the nuclear industry. This disaster was a result of numerous factors including inadequate nuclear power plant design, human errors, and violation of safety measures. The lessons learned from nuclear accidents will continue to strengthen the safety design of new reactor installations, but with more than 400 active nuclear power stations worldwide and 104 reactors in the Unites States, it is essential to reassess fundamental issues related to the Chernobyl experience as it continues to evolve. This article summarizes early and late events of the incident, the impact on thyroid health, and attempts to reduce agricultural radioactive contamination.

Merkel cell tumor of the skin treated with localized radiotherapy: are widely negative margins required?

Merkel's cell carcinoma is a rare cutaneous tumor that can affect a wide variety of sites throughout the body. Commonly, it affects the skin alone and the management of limited disease can be confusing since the natural history of the disease involves distant metastasis. Traditional management has required wide local excision with negative margins of resection. We describe a case treated with local therapy alone and review the literature to suggest that complete microscopic excision may not be required if adjuvant radiotherapy is used.

Long-term cosmesis after lumpectomy and brachytherapy in the management of carcinoma of the previously irradiated breast.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cosmetic outcome of brachytherapy after lumpectomy in the management of carcinoma of the previously irradiated breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1998 and April 2008, 26 patients with TIS or T1 breast carcinoma were offered interstitial or intracavitary brachytherapy after lumpectomy in a previously irradiated breast as an alternative to salvage mastectomy. Twenty-five of 26 patients had prior lumpectomy followed by standard postoperative external beam radiotherapy for early stage carcinoma of the breast [dose range 5000-6040 cGy]. One patient developed breast cancer after full mantle irradiation [4500 cGy to the mediastinum and axillae] for Hodgkin Lymphoma 27 years earlier. All tumors were excised with final margins of resection free of disease per National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project definition. After lumpectomy, tumor bed implantation was carried out utilizing a low dose rate interstitial technique in 22 patients, whereas 3 patients were treated with high dose rate brachytherapy using the MammoSite brachytherapy catheter and 1 patient was treated with high dose rate brachytherapy using the Contura catheter. The low dose rate treatment consisted of 4500 to 5000 cGy at 35 to 50 cGy per hour to the tumor bed plus a 1.0 cm margin, whereas the high dose rate treatment consisted of 3400 cGy in twice daily fractions of 340 cGy currently used in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-39. Cosmesis was graded according to the B-39 cosmesis scale for de novo treatments: grade I as excellent, grade II as good, Grade III as fair, and Grade IV as poor. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were scored as grade I, 6 as grade II, and 2 as grade III. No patient received a Grade IV score. All 4 balloon brachytherapy patients were scored as Grade I. Twenty-five of 26 patients remained free of local failure with a median follow-up of 38 months (range 6-75 months). The only patient to develop a second local recurrence was graded as grade I before salvage mastectomy. Two patients developed wound dehiscence after immediate postlumpectomy implantation. Two have succumbed to metastatic breast carcinoma at 17 and 24 months after salvage implant therapy. An additional patient has succumbed to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All patients, regardless of cosmesis grade were satisfied with their decision for repeat conservation therapy. Factors affecting cosmesis were distance from the implant to the skin, the type of device used, and the amount of residual breast tissue after repeat lumpectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The cosmetic effect of brachytherapy after lumpectomy in the management of recurrent carcinoma of the previously irradiated breast is acceptable in highly selected patients. Intracavitary technique may provide superior cosmetic results for patients retreated with brachytherapy for salvage.