BackgroundPeri-lesional edema is a serious and well-known complication of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Here we evaluated edema risk after SRS and assessed its formation and resolution dynamics.Patients and methods107 patients underwent SRS for heterogeneous diagnoses: 34 (29%) with arteriovenous malformations, 38 (35%) with meningiomas, 16 (15%) with metastatic tumors, 16 (15%) with acoustic neuromas, 3 with (3%) cavernomas, and 2 (2%) each with anaplastic astrocytomas and anaplastic oligoastrocytomas. Edema area was delineated in MRI T2-FLAIR sequences 0, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 38 months after treatment. Lesion location was defined as either above (n = 80) or below (n = 32) the “Frankfurt modified line” (FML).Results17% of patients developed or had worsening post-treatment edema. Edema volume was maximal at 6 months (mean 7.2, SD 1.2) post radiosurgery. Post-SRS edema was 5.1 (1.06 – 24.53) times more likely in patients with lesions above the FML. There was no association between edema development and age, PTV size, number of beams, and diagnosis (p = 0.07).ConclusionsRadiosurgery-associated edema develops within 6 months of treatment and decreases over time. Edema occurrence is strongly related to lesion location, and its presence is much more likely when the treated lesions are situated above the Frankfurt line.
PurposeSkin is a major organ at risk in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations require monitoring of maximum dose received, however, there is no unambiguous way of skin contouring provided. The purpose of this study was to compare the doses received by the skin in different models.Material and methodsStandard treatment plans of 20 patients who underwent interstitial breast brachytherapy were analyzed. Every patient had a new treatment plan prepared according to Paris system and had skin contoured in three different ways. The first model, Skin 2 mm, corresponds to the dermatological breast skin thickness and is reaching 2 mm into an external patient contour. It was rejected in a further analysis, because of distinct discontinuities in contouring. The second model, Skin 4 mm, replaced Skin 2 mm, and is reaching 2 mm inside and 2 mm outside of the External contour. The third model, Skin EXT, is created on the External contour and it expands 4 mm outside. Doses received by the most exposed 0.1 cc, 1 cc, 2 cc, and the maximum doses for Skin 4 mm and Skin EXT were compared.ResultsMean, median, maximum, and standard deviation of percentage dose difference between Skin EXT and Skin 4 mm for the most exposed 0.1 cc (D0.1cc) of skin were 18.01%, 17.20%, 27.84%, and 4.01%, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05).ConclusionsMonitoring of doses received by skin is necessary to avoid complications and obtain a satisfactory cosmetic effect. It is difficult to assess the compatibility of treatment plans with recommendations, while there is no unambiguous way of skin contouring. Especially, if a mean difference of doses between two models of skin contouring is 18% for the most exposed 0.1 cc and can reach almost 28% in some cases. Differences of this magnitude can result in skin complications during BCT.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.