PURPOSE: To determine current practice patterns with regard to gynecologic high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy among international members of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) in Japan/Korea (Asia), Australia/New Zealand (ANZ), Europe (E), and North America (NAm). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 32-item survey was developed requesting information on brachytherapy practice patterns and standard management for Stage IB-IVA cervical cancer. The chair of each GCIG member cooperative group selected radiation oncology members to receive the survey. RESULTS: A total of 72 responses were analyzed; 61 respondents (85%) used HDR. The three most common HDR brachytherapy fractionation regimens for Stage IB-IIA patients were 6 Gy for five fractions (18%), 6 Gy for four fractions (15%), and 7 Gy for three fractions (11%); for Stage IIB-IVA patients they were 6 Gy for five fractions (19%), 7 Gy for four fractions (8%), and 7 Gy for three fractions (8%). Overall, the mean combined external-beam and brachytherapy equivalent dose (EQD2) was 81.1 (standard deviation [SD] 10.16). The mean EQD2 recommended for Stage IB-IIA patients was 78.9 Gy (SD 10.7) and for Stage IIB-IVA was 83.3 Gy (SD 11.2) (p = 0.02). By region, the mean combined EQD2 was as follows: Asia, 71.2 Gy (SD 12.65); ANZ, 81.18 (SD 4.96); E, 83.24 (SD 10.75); and NAm, 81.66 (SD, 6.05; p = 0.02 for Asia vs. other regions).The ratio of brachytherapy to total prescribed dose was significantly higher for Japan (p = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Although fractionation patterns may vary, the overall mean doses administered for cervical cancer are similar in Australia/New Zealand, Europe, and North America, with practitioners in Japan administering a significantly lower external-beam dose but higher brachytherapy dose to the cervix. Given common goals, standardization should be possible in future clinical trials.
PURPOSE: To determine current practice patterns with regard to gynecologic high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy among international members of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) in Japan/Korea (Asia), Australia/New Zealand (ANZ), Europe (E), and North America (NAm). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 32-item survey was developed requesting information on brachytherapy practice patterns and standard management for Stage IB-IVA cervical cancer. The chair of each GCIG member cooperative group selected radiation oncology members to receive the survey. RESULTS: A total of 72 responses were analyzed; 61 respondents (85%) used HDR. The three most common HDR brachytherapy fractionation regimens for Stage IB-IIA patients were 6 Gy for five fractions (18%), 6 Gy for four fractions (15%), and 7 Gy for three fractions (11%); for Stage IIB-IVApatients they were 6 Gy for five fractions (19%), 7 Gy for four fractions (8%), and 7 Gy for three fractions (8%). Overall, the mean combined external-beam and brachytherapy equivalent dose (EQD2) was 81.1 (standard deviation [SD] 10.16). The mean EQD2 recommended for Stage IB-IIA patients was 78.9 Gy (SD 10.7) and for Stage IIB-IVA was 83.3 Gy (SD 11.2) (p = 0.02). By region, the mean combined EQD2 was as follows: Asia, 71.2 Gy (SD 12.65); ANZ, 81.18 (SD 4.96); E, 83.24 (SD 10.75); and NAm, 81.66 (SD, 6.05; p = 0.02 for Asia vs. other regions).The ratio of brachytherapy to total prescribed dose was significantly higher for Japan (p = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Although fractionation patterns may vary, the overall mean doses administered for cervical cancer are similar in Australia/New Zealand, Europe, and North America, with practitioners in Japan administering a significantly lower external-beam dose but higher brachytherapy dose to the cervix. Given common goals, standardization should be possible in future clinical trials.
Authors: Richard Pötter; Johannes Dimopoulos; Christian Kirisits; Stefan Lang; Christine Haie-Meder; Edith Briot; Isabelle Dumas; Erik Van Limbergen; Marisol De Brabandere; An Nulens; Beth Erickson; Jason Rownd; Peter Petrow Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Beth Erickson; Patricia Eifel; Jennifer Moughan; Jason Rownd; Thomas Iarocci; Jean Owen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patricia J Eifel; Kathryn Winter; Mitchell Morris; Charles Levenback; Perry W Grigsby; Jay Cooper; Marvin Rotman; David Gershenson; David G Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher J Anker; Charles V Cachoeira; Kenneth M Boucher; Jim Rankin; David K Gaffney Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-25 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Kevin E Casey; Paola Alvarez; Stephen F Kry; Rebecca M Howell; Ann Lawyer; David Followill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.071
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: David K Gaffney; Anuja Jhingran; Lorraine Portelance; Akila Viswanathan; Tracey Schefter; Joanne Weidhaas; William Small Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Scott Dryden-Peterson; Memory Bvochora-Nsingo; Gita Suneja; Jason A Efstathiou; Surbhi Grover; Sebathu Chiyapo; Doreen Ramogola-Masire; Malebogo Kebabonye-Pusoentsi; Rebecca Clayman; Abigail C Mapes; Neo Tapela; Aida Asmelash; Heluf Medhin; Akila N Viswanathan; Anthony H Russell; Lilie L Lin; Mukendi K A Kayembe; Mompati Mmalane; Thomas C Randall; Bruce Chabner; Shahin Lockman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544