Akila N Viswanathan1, Beth A Erickson. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. aviswanathan@lroc.harvard.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine current practice patterns with regard to three-dimensional (3D) imaging for gynecologic brachytherapy among American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) members. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Registered physician members of the ABS received a 19-item survey by e-mail in August 2007. This report excludes physicians not performing brachytherapy for cervical cancer. RESULTS: Of the 256 surveys sent, we report results for 133 respondents who perform one or more implantations per year for locally advanced cervical cancer. Ultrasound aids 56% of physicians with applicator insertion. After insertion, 70% of physicians routinely obtain a computed tomography (CT) scan. The majority (55%) use CT rather than X-ray films (43%) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 2%) for dose specification to the cervix. However, 76% prescribe to Point A alone instead of using a 3D-derived tumor volume (14%), both Point A and tumor volume (7%), or mg/h (3%). Those using 3D imaging routinely contour the bladder and rectum (94%), sigmoid (45%), small bowel (38%), and/or urethra (8%) and calculate normal tissue dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis parameters including the D2cc (49%), D1cc (36%), D0.1cc (19%), and/or D5cc (19%). Respondents most commonly modify the treatment plan based on International Commission on Radiation Units bladder and/or rectal point dose values (53%) compared with DVH values (45%) or both (2%). CONCLUSIONS: More ABS physician members use CT postimplantation imaging than plain films for visualizing the gynecologic brachytherapy apparatus. However, the majority prescribe to Point A rather than using 3D image based dosimetry. Use of 3D image-based treatment planning for gynecologic brachytherapy has the potential for significant growth in the United States.
PURPOSE: To determine current practice patterns with regard to three-dimensional (3D) imaging for gynecologic brachytherapy among American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) members. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Registered physician members of the ABS received a 19-item survey by e-mail in August 2007. This report excludes physicians not performing brachytherapy for cervical cancer. RESULTS: Of the 256 surveys sent, we report results for 133 respondents who perform one or more implantations per year for locally advanced cervical cancer. Ultrasound aids 56% of physicians with applicator insertion. After insertion, 70% of physicians routinely obtain a computed tomography (CT) scan. The majority (55%) use CT rather than X-ray films (43%) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 2%) for dose specification to the cervix. However, 76% prescribe to Point A alone instead of using a 3D-derived tumor volume (14%), both Point A and tumor volume (7%), or mg/h (3%). Those using 3D imaging routinely contour the bladder and rectum (94%), sigmoid (45%), small bowel (38%), and/or urethra (8%) and calculate normal tissue dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis parameters including the D2cc (49%), D1cc (36%), D0.1cc (19%), and/or D5cc (19%). Respondents most commonly modify the treatment plan based on International Commission on Radiation Units bladder and/or rectal point dose values (53%) compared with DVH values (45%) or both (2%). CONCLUSIONS: More ABS physician members use CT postimplantation imaging than plain films for visualizing the gynecologic brachytherapy apparatus. However, the majority prescribe to Point A rather than using 3D image based dosimetry. Use of 3D image-based treatment planning for gynecologic brachytherapy has the potential for significant growth in the United States.
Authors: T Phan; L Mula-Hussain; S Pavamani; A Pearce; D D'Souza; N G Patil; L Traptow; C M Doll Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Carien L Creutzberg; Peter Craighead; Mary McCormack; Takafumi Toita; Kailash Narayan; Nicholas Reed; Harry Long; Hak-Jae Kim; Christian Marth; Jacob C Lindegaard; Annmarie Cerrotta; William Small; Edward Trimble Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Sushil Beriwal; Jennifer F De Los Santos; D Jeffrey Demanes; David Gaffney; Jorgen Hansen; Ellen Jones; Christian Kirisits; Bruce Thomadsen; Beth Erickson Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Justin K Mikell; Ann H Klopp; Graciela M N Gonzalez; Kelly D Kisling; Michael J Price; Paula A Berner; Patricia J Eifel; Firas Mourtada Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Antonio L Damato; Kanopkis Townamchai; Michele Albert; Ryan J Bair; Robert A Cormack; Joanne Jang; Arpad Kovacs; Larissa J Lee; Kimberley S Mak; Kristina L Mirabeau-Beale; Kent W Mouw; John G Phillips; Jennifer L Pretz; Andrea L Russo; John H Lewis; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 7.038