Clinical Applications of High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy

Nag, Subir; Scruggs, Granger R.

doi:10.1007/174_2011_332

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 167 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, HDR is biologically more toxic than LDR, 34,35 in that the degree of damage to tumor cells relative to the damage to normal tissue cells (ie, the therapeutic ratio) is lower for HDR than LDR. Damage to both tumor and normal cells increases with dose rate, but the increase in injury to healthy cells is proportionately greater.…”

Section: Benefits Of Low-dose Versus High-dose Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Benefits of high-dose brachytherapy compared with low-dose 34,35 include the short duration of treatment, which minimizes the risk that the applicator will move or become misaligned with the target. HDR may be preferred by patients because it is an outpatient treatment, and does not require prolonged bed rest confined in a room; this avoidance of an inpatient stay can also result in significant cost reduction.…”

Section: Benefits Of Low-dose Versus High-dose Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of brachytherapy in the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer: A review

Alam

Nanda

Mittal

et al. 2011

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Benefits Of Low-dose Versus High-dose Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Benefits Of Low-dose Versus High-dose Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of brachytherapy in the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer: A review

Alam

Nanda

Mittal

et al. 2011

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although brachytherapy is strongly advised in the management of LACC, it is not without disadvantages. These include its invasive nature, intensive resource requirements, technical complexities, need for inpatient care, and preference for performing it in women with a good performance status [ 16 ]. These aspects are often considered as drawbacks by many medical centers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brachytherapy in gynecological malignancies at a tertiary care hospital: An analysis

Parween,

et al. 2024

jcb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Brachytherapy plays a crucial role in the standard of care for locally advanced gynecological malignancies. In this report, we present the experience from a tertiary teaching hospital, which is a referral center for image-guided brachytherapy (IGBT) in the management of locally advanced gynecological malignancies. Material and methods This was a retrospective study of 130 patients referred to our hospital for IGBT after receiving initial external beam radiotherapy in their primary healthcare facilities, from January 2021 till January 2023. CT-based planning was done to delineate high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV). Dose of 6-7.5 Gy in 3-4 fractions was prescribed. Overall treatment time (OTT) was calculated, and patients were assessed for clinical response and toxicity after three months. Results All patients received IGBT using an intra-cavitary or interstitial technique. The D 90 HR-CTV mean EQD 2 dose was 28.34 ±2.78 Gy. The mean EQD 2 dose to 2 cc of the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid was 18.31 ±5.19 Gy, 14.14 ±5.76 Gy, and 17.43 ±4.75 Gy, respectively. The median interval time between the last fraction of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and first evaluation in the hospital was 19 (range, 13-28) days (interquartile range [IQR]). The median time between the completion of chemoradiation and brachytherapy procedure was 25 (range, 19-33) days (IQR). The mean overall treatment time (OTT) was 63.5 ±14.7 days. Conclusions This study highlights the established advantages of image-guided interstitial brachytherapy and associated challenges. To optimize the overall treatment duration, it is imperative to prioritize and update the referral processes for brachytherapy centers.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, in some clinics, therapists also perform the HDR daily QAs under a physicist's supervision; this practice is supported by numerous official documents. [6][7][8] For example, in AAPM TG-59, it is clearly stated that the "radiation therapist executes daily QA protocol the morning of the procedure"; 6 similarly, in IAEA-TECDOC-1257, it is also stated that "daily tests can be performed by a technician." 7 The physicist's role is to define the organization and responsibilities of the treatment-delivery team members and to provide for their training.…”

Section: Opening Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%