Sophia C Kamran1, Matthias M Manuel2, Linda P Cho3, Antonio L Damato4, Ehud J Schmidt5, Clare Tempany5, Robert A Cormack6, Akila N Viswanathan7. 1. Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, MA, United States. Electronic address: sophia_kamran@post.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States; Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, Bronx, NY, United States. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 5. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Boston, MA, United States. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: anv@jhu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to compare local control (LC), overall survival (OS) and dose to the organs at risk (OAR) in women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with MR-guided versus CT-guided interstitial brachytherapy (BT). METHODS: 56 patients (29 MR, 27 CT) were treated with high-dose-rate (HDR) interstitial BT between 2005-2015. The MR patients had been prospectively enrolled on a Phase II clinical trial. Data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) and Cox proportional hazards statistical modeling in JMP® & R®. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 19.7months (MR group) and 18.4months (CT group). There were no statistically significant differences in patient age at diagnosis, histology, percent with tumor size >4cm, grade, FIGO stage or lymph node involvement between the groups. Patients in the MR group had more lymphovascular involvement compared to patients in the CT group (p<0.01). When evaluating plans generated, there were no statistically significant differences in median cumulative dose to the high-risk clinical target volume or the OAR. 2-year K-M LC rates for MR-based and CT-based treatments were 96% and 87%, respectively (log-rank p=0.65). At 2years, OS was significantly better in the MR-guided cohort (84% vs. 56%, p=0.036). On multivariate analysis, squamous histology was associated with longer OS (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.72) in a model with MR BT (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08-1.18). There was no difference in toxicities between CT and MR BT. CONCLUSION: In this population of locally advanced cervical-cancer patients, MR-guided HDR BT resulted in estimated 96% 2-year local control and excellent survival and toxicity rates.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to compare local control (LC), overall survival (OS) and dose to the organs at risk (OAR) in women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with MR-guided versus CT-guided interstitial brachytherapy (BT). METHODS: 56 patients (29 MR, 27 CT) were treated with high-dose-rate (HDR) interstitial BT between 2005-2015. The MR patients had been prospectively enrolled on a Phase II clinical trial. Data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) and Cox proportional hazards statistical modeling in JMP® & R®. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 19.7months (MR group) and 18.4months (CT group). There were no statistically significant differences in patient age at diagnosis, histology, percent with tumor size >4cm, grade, FIGO stage or lymph node involvement between the groups. Patients in the MR group had more lymphovascular involvement compared to patients in the CT group (p<0.01). When evaluating plans generated, there were no statistically significant differences in median cumulative dose to the high-risk clinical target volume or the OAR. 2-year K-M LC rates for MR-based and CT-based treatments were 96% and 87%, respectively (log-rank p=0.65). At 2years, OS was significantly better in the MR-guided cohort (84% vs. 56%, p=0.036). On multivariate analysis, squamous histology was associated with longer OS (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.72) in a model with MR BT (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08-1.18). There was no difference in toxicities between CT and MR BT. CONCLUSION: In this population of locally advanced cervical-cancerpatients, MR-guided HDR BT resulted in estimated 96% 2-year local control and excellent survival and toxicity rates.
Authors: Vijaya Galic; Thomas J Herzog; Sharyn N Lewin; Alfred I Neugut; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Renaud Mazeron; Lars U Fokdal; Kathrin Kirchheiner; Petra Georg; Noha Jastaniyah; Barbara Šegedin; Umesh Mahantshetty; Peter Hoskin; Ina Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Christian Kirisits; Jacob C Lindegaard; Wolfgang Dörr; Christine Haie-Meder; Kari Tanderup; Richard Pötter Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Christine Haie-Meder; Richard Pötter; Erik Van Limbergen; Edith Briot; Marisol De Brabandere; Johannes Dimopoulos; Isabelle Dumas; Taran Paulsen Hellebust; Christian Kirisits; Stefan Lang; Sabine Muschitz; Juliana Nevinson; An Nulens; Peter Petrow; Natascha Wachter-Gerstner Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Jackie Szymonifka; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Desmond A O'Farrell; Robert A Cormack Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Peter G Rose; James Java; Charles W Whitney; Frederick B Stehman; Rachelle Lanciano; Gillian M Thomas; Paul A DiSilvestro Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Johannes Dimopoulos; Christian Kirisits; Daniel Berger; Richard Pötter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Eisbruch; C M Johnston; M K Martel; J M Robertson; K R Reynolds; L H Marsh; J A Roberts Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johannes C A Dimopoulos; Peter Petrow; Kari Tanderup; Primoz Petric; Daniel Berger; Christian Kirisits; Erik M Pedersen; Erik van Limbergen; Christine Haie-Meder; Richard Pötter Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: José Richart; Vicente Carmona-Meseguer; Teresa García-Martínez; Antonio Herreros; Antonio Otal; Santiago Pellejero; Ana Tornero-López; José Pérez-Calatayud Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2018-07-23
Authors: Paolo Zaffino; Guillaume Pernelle; Andre Mastmeyer; Alireza Mehrtash; Hongtao Zhang; Ron Kikinis; Tina Kapur; Maria Francesca Spadea Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Akbar Alipour; Akila N Viswanathan; Ronald D Watkins; Hassan Elahi; Wolfgang Loew; Eric Meyer; Marc Morcos; Henry R Halperin; Ehud J Schmidt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Winnie Wing Ling Yip; Joyce Siu Yu Wong; Venus Wan Yan Lee; Frank Chi Sing Wong; Stewart Yuk Tung Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2017-10-30