PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to survey the brachytherapy practice for cervical cancer in the United States. METHODS: The Clinical Research Committee of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) performed a retrospective survey of individual physicians of the ABS and American Society of Therapeutic Radiologists and Oncologists regarding the details of the brachytherapy techniques they personally used in the treatment of cervical cancer patients for the year 1995. The replies (some of which may have been an estimate only) were tabulated. The scope of this survey did not allow us to verify the data by chart audits. RESULTS: A total of about 3500 questionnaires were mailed out; 521 responses were received. Of these responders, 206 (40%) did not perform any brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix in 1995. Of the other 315 responders reporting a total of 4892 patients treated in 1995, 88% used low dose rate (LDR) while 24% used high dose rate (HDR). There was a wide variation in the doses used. For LDR treatments, the median total external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose was 45 and 50 Gy and the LDR dose was 42 and 45 Gy for early and advanced cancers, respectively. For HDR treatments, the median EBRT dose was 48 and 50 Gy and the median HDR dose was 29 and 30 Gy for early and advanced cancers, respectively. The median dose per fraction was 6 Gy for a median of five fractions. Interstitial brachytherapy was used as a component of the treatment in 6% of the patients by 21% of responders. Very few responders treated with pulsed or medium dose rates. CONCLUSION: This retrospective survey showed the current brachytherapy practice pattern in the treatment of cervical cancer in the United States and can serve as a basis for future prospective national brachytherapy data registry. There was wide variation in the practice pattern, emphasizing the urgent need for consensus on these issues. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to survey the brachytherapy practice for cervical cancer in the United States. METHODS: The Clinical Research Committee of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) performed a retrospective survey of individual physicians of the ABS and American Society of Therapeutic Radiologists and Oncologists regarding the details of the brachytherapy techniques they personally used in the treatment of cervical cancerpatients for the year 1995. The replies (some of which may have been an estimate only) were tabulated. The scope of this survey did not allow us to verify the data by chart audits. RESULTS: A total of about 3500 questionnaires were mailed out; 521 responses were received. Of these responders, 206 (40%) did not perform any brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix in 1995. Of the other 315 responders reporting a total of 4892 patients treated in 1995, 88% used low dose rate (LDR) while 24% used high dose rate (HDR). There was a wide variation in the doses used. For LDR treatments, the median total external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose was 45 and 50 Gy and the LDR dose was 42 and 45 Gy for early and advanced cancers, respectively. For HDR treatments, the median EBRT dose was 48 and 50 Gy and the median HDR dose was 29 and 30 Gy for early and advanced cancers, respectively. The median dose per fraction was 6 Gy for a median of five fractions. Interstitial brachytherapy was used as a component of the treatment in 6% of the patients by 21% of responders. Very few responders treated with pulsed or medium dose rates. CONCLUSION: This retrospective survey showed the current brachytherapy practice pattern in the treatment of cervical cancer in the United States and can serve as a basis for future prospective national brachytherapy data registry. There was wide variation in the practice pattern, emphasizing the urgent need for consensus on these issues. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.
Authors: Sonali S Patankar; Ana I Tergas; Israel Deutsch; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Cande V Ananth; Yongmei Huang; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 5.482