No abstract

Purpose: To systematically review scientific literature on the use of intensity-modulated brachytherapy (IMBT), including static and dynamic shielding approaches, to enhance therapeutic ratio. Studies were evaluated for technique, disease site, dosimetry, applicators, dosimetric calculations, and planning algorithms. Comparisons with standard-of-care brachytherapy techniques, alternative IMBT methods, or both were performed for dose-to-target volumes, organs at risk (OARs), and treatment planning or delivery times. Methods and Materials: Inclusion criteria were any peer-reviewed journal articles on IMBT published from January 1, 1980, to January 1, 2019, on PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO databases. Two independent investigators reviewed each article for inclusion and exclusion criteria and scope. Data collected on each study included technique, source or shield material, disease site, n of study (n Z number of simulated plans/treated patients), doseto-target/OARs, and planning or delivery times. This review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Database queries yielded 1734 results, which were reduced to 436 after exclusion criteria and 78 peer-reviewed journal articles after evaluation of scope. Studies per disease site were 31 for cervical; 16 for rectal; 10 for oculocutaneous; 7 for breast; 6 for prostate; and 8 for other, multiple, or no specific disease site. Eighteen studies demonstrated a significant decrease in dose to OARs (5.1%-68.2%), 11 improved treatment planning or delivery times (7.6%-99.7%), and 6 increased target coverage (18.6%-71.6%) relative to standard-of-care or alternative IMBT technique. IMBT consistently decreased dose to OAR compared with the standard of care at the cost of increased planning or delivery times. Innovations in dose calculation or planning algorithms and applicators were capable of ameliorating prolonged treatment intervals.

No abstract

No abstract

Background:Postoperative monitoring is crucial in the care of free flap breast reconstruction patients. Tertiary care facilities (TCFs) provide postoperative monitoring in an ICU after surgery. Specialty surgery hospitals (SSHs) do not have ICUs, but these facilities perform free flap breast reconstruction as well. Are outcomes comparable between the 2 facilities in terms of flap reexploration times and overall success?Methods:Retrospective study including 163 SSH and 157 TCF patients. Primary predictor was facility in which the procedure was performed. Secondary predictors included operative, demographic, and comorbidity data. Primary outcomes were flap take back rate and flap failures. Secondary outcomes were total time from adverse event noticed in the flap to returning to the operating room (OR) and total time from decision made to return to the OR to returning to the OR (decision made). Tertiary outcomes were length of stay, operative times, and blood loss.Results:Patients at the TCF were generally less healthy than SSH patients. Salvage rates and failure rates were similar between the 2 institutions. Adverse event noticed and decision made times did not differ between the 2 facilities. Overall flap success rate was 98.22% at SSH and 98.81% at TCF. No primary or secondary predictors had a significant correlation with increased odds for flap failure.Conclusion:SSHs can offer similar outcomes in free flap breast reconstruction with just as effective clinical response times to endangered flaps as found in a TCF. However, surgery at an SSH may best be reserved for healthier patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Historically, patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas (STS) of the extremities would undergo limb amputation. It was subsequently determined that the addition of radiation therapy (RT) delivered prior to (neoadjuvant) or after (adjuvant) a limb-sparing surgical resection yielded equivalent survival outcomes to amputation in appropriate patients. Generally, neoadjuvant radiation offers decreased volume and dose of high-intensity radiation to normal tissue and increased chance of achieving negative surgical margins—but also increases wound healing complications when compared to adjuvant radiotherapy. This review elaborates on the current neoadjuvant/adjuvant RT approaches, wound healing complications in STS, and the potential application of novel radioprotective agents to minimize radiation-induced normal tissue toxicity.