| Literature DB >> 26622234 |
Scott M Glaser1, Sushil Beriwal1.
Abstract
Vaginal cancer is an uncommon malignancy and can be either recurrent or primary. In both cases, brachytherapy places a central role in the overall treatment course. Recent technological advances have led to more advanced brachytherapy techniques, which in turn have translated to improved outcomes for patients with malignancies of the vagina. The aim of this manuscript is to outline the incorporation of modern brachytherapy into the treatment of patients with vaginal cancer including patient selection along with the role of brachytherapy in conjunction with other treatment modalities, various brachytherapy techniques, treatment planning, dose fractionation schedules, and normal tissue tolerance.Entities:
Keywords: brachytherapy; interstitial; intracavitary; vaginal cancer
Year: 2015 PMID: 26622234 PMCID: PMC4643736 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2015.54053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Fig. 1Sagittal view T2 sequence MRI with vaginal gel, demonstrating the extent of tumor
Fig. 2Dosimetry of a single-channel vaginal cylinder with prescription dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions of EBRT followed by 5 Gy x 5 fractions HDR brachytherapy with CTV D90 = 75.5 Gy, Rectum D2cc = 61.6 Gy, Bladder D2cc = 58.6 Gy
Fig. 3Dosimetry of an interstitial brachytherapy implant in a patient with adenocarcinoma and a poor response to EBRT with prescription dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions of EBRT followed by 5.5 Gy x 5 HDR brachytherapy. A) Pre-EBRT MRI. B) Post-EBRT MRI. C) Interstitial Plan: CTV D90 = 82.1 Gy, Rectum D2cc = 60.0 Gy, Bladder D2cc = 58.6 Gy
Fig. 4Dosimetry of a multi-channel vaginal cylinder. A) Contouring. B) Plan with prescription dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions EBRT and 5.5 Gy x 5 fractions HDR brachytherapy with CTV D90 = 79.8 Gy, Rectum D2cc = 59.8 Gy, Bladder D2cc = 54.1 Gy, Urethra D0.1cc = 71.3 Gy
Summary of local control and late toxicities for vaginal cancer patients treated with brachytherapy
| Primary technique | First author (year of publication) |
| % recurrent/% primary | Local control | Vaginal toxicity | Urinary toxicity | GI toxicity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Curran (1988) [ | 47 | 100/0 | 42% 5-yr | 0% | 0% | 4% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Stock (1992) [ | 49 | 0/100 | 44% 2-yr | 8% | 4% | 14% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Morgan (1993) [ | 34 | 100/0 | 85% 5-yr | 12% | 0% | 0% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Sears (1994) [ | 45 | 100/0 | 54% 5-yr | 0% | 4% | 16% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Chyle (1996) [ | 301 | 0/100 | 77% 5-yr | 6% | 4% | 6% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Fine (1996) [ | 55 | 0/100 | 78% 5-yr | 0% | 0% | 15% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Jereczek (2000) [ | 73 | 100/0 | 40% 5-yr | 4% | 4% | 15% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Wylie (2000) [ | 58 | 100/0 | 65% 5-yr | NR | NR | NR |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Jhingran (2003) [ | 91 | 100/0 | 75% 5-yr | 0% | 1% | 11% |
| EBRT + 2D LDR | Lin (2005) [ | 50 | 100/0 | 72% 10-yr | 0% | 0% | 10% |
| EBRT + 2D HDR | Pai (1997) [ | 20 | 100/0 | 74% 4-yr | 5% | 0% | 5% |
| EBRT + 2D HDR | Mock (2003) [ | 86 | 0/100 | NR (66% 5-yr DSS) | 4% | 1% | 2% |
| EBRT + 2D HDR | Lieskovsky (2004) [ | 54 | 0/100 | 87% 4-yr | 7% | 2% | 6% |
| EBRT + 2D HDR | Petignat (2006) [ | 22 | 100/0 | 100% 5-yr | 50% | 0% | 18% |
| EBRT + 2D HDR | Sorbe (2013) [ | 25 | 100/0 | 92% 5-yr | 19% | 4% | 35% |
| EBRT + 3D interstitial HDR | Dimopoulos (2012) [ | 13 | 0/100 | 92% 3-yr | 15% | 8% | 0% |
| EBRT + 3D interstitial HDR | Beriwal (2012) [ | 30 | 43/57 | 79% 2-yr | 7% | 0% | 0% |
| EBRT + 3D HDR | Lee (2013) [ | 31 | 100/0 | 96% 2-yr | 3% | 0% | 0% |
| IMRT + 3D MCVC HDR | Vargo (2015) [ | 41 | 76/24 | 93% 2-yr | 0% | 0% | 4% |
EBRT – external beam radiotherapy, LDR – low-dose-rate, HDR – high-dose-rate, IMRT – intensity modulated radiotherapy, 2D – 2-dimensional, 3D – 3-dimensional, MCVC – multichannel vaginal cylinder, GI – gastrointestinal
Excludes patients with prior pelvic radiotherapy.
Excludes patients treated with EBRT or brachytherapy alone.
Includes regional failures and patients with prior RT