PURPOSE: A new device has been developed with the goal of making breast-conserving therapy more widely available, by making breast brachytherapy as monotherapy simpler and more accurate. This is the first published report on the dosimetric characteristics of this device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experience of a single institution participating in a multi-institutional trial is reported. Twelve patients were enrolled, of whom 8 were treated. Computed tomography scans of all 12 patients were obtained before initiation of treatment. A commercial three-dimensional planning system was used for retrospective detailed analysis of dosimetry, including dose-volume histograms and, in selected patients, skin dose distributions. These data were compared to those of a similar group of patients, analyzed previously, that was treated with interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy. RESULTS: Compared with interstitial brachytherapy, the MammoSite device resulted in a treatment dose that was less uniform, with a mean dose homogeneity index of 0.77 vs. 0.93. Coverage and reproducibility were improved, with a mean D90 (minimum dose to 90% of target volume) of 90.0% of prescribed dose (SD 0.5, range: 89.2-90.8%) vs. 69.8% (SD 7.3, range: 61.1-83.5%) for interstitial brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Reproducible placement was easily achieved in this very early experience, indicating a much smaller "learning curve" than for interstitial brachytherapy. Because skin doses can be increased with the use of this device, caution is indicated, although simple maneuvers can significantly reduce skin dose.
PURPOSE: A new device has been developed with the goal of making breast-conserving therapy more widely available, by making breast brachytherapy as monotherapy simpler and more accurate. This is the first published report on the dosimetric characteristics of this device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experience of a single institution participating in a multi-institutional trial is reported. Twelve patients were enrolled, of whom 8 were treated. Computed tomography scans of all 12 patients were obtained before initiation of treatment. A commercial three-dimensional planning system was used for retrospective detailed analysis of dosimetry, including dose-volume histograms and, in selected patients, skin dose distributions. These data were compared to those of a similar group of patients, analyzed previously, that was treated with interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy. RESULTS: Compared with interstitial brachytherapy, the MammoSite device resulted in a treatment dose that was less uniform, with a mean dose homogeneity index of 0.77 vs. 0.93. Coverage and reproducibility were improved, with a mean D90 (minimum dose to 90% of target volume) of 90.0% of prescribed dose (SD 0.5, range: 89.2-90.8%) vs. 69.8% (SD 7.3, range: 61.1-83.5%) for interstitial brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Reproducible placement was easily achieved in this very early experience, indicating a much smaller "learning curve" than for interstitial brachytherapy. Because skin doses can be increased with the use of this device, caution is indicated, although simple maneuvers can significantly reduce skin dose.
Authors: Shihong Li; Beth Goins; William T Phillips; Marcela Saenz; Pamela M Otto; Ande Bao Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Henry M Kuerer; Thomas B Julian; Eric A Strom; H Kim Lyerly; Armando E Giuliano; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Frank A Vicini Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J Dawn Waters; Brent Rose; David D Gonda; Daniel J Scanderbeg; Michelle Russell; John F Alksne; Kevin Murphy; Bob S Carter; Joshua Lawson; Clark C Chen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Kent A Gifford; Christopher L Nelson; Steven M Kirsner; Kelly D Kisling; Matthew T Ballo; Elizabeth S Bloom Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2012-03-30