Christina Binder1, Prithvi Mruthyunjaya2,3, Amy C Schefler4, Michael I Seider5,6, Richard Crilly1, Arthur Hung1, Sheridan Meltsner7, Yvonne Mowery7, David G Kirsch7, Bin S Teh8, Richard L S Jennelle9, Matthew T Studenski10, Wu Liu11,12, Choonik Lee13, James A Hayman13, Brian Kastner14, Michael Hadsell15, Alison H Skalet1,16. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 4. Retina Consultants of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. The Permanente Medical Group, San Francisco, California, USA. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA. 12. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University and Yale-New haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 14. Radiation Oncology Centers, PC, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. 15. Department of Radiation Oncology, Porter Adventist, Centura Health, Denver, Colorado, USA. 16. Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment planning for I-125 plaque therapy for uveal melanoma has advanced significantly since the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study trial, with more widely available image-guided planning and improved dosimetry. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated real-world practice patterns for I-125 plaque brachytherapy in the United States by studying practice patterns at centers that comprise the Ocular Oncology Study Consortium (OOSC). METHODS: The OOSC database and responses to a treatment practice survey were evaluated. The database contains treatment information from 9 institutions. Patients included in the database were treated between 2010 and 2014. The survey was conducted in 2018 and current treatment planning methods and prescriptions were queried. RESULTS: Examination of the OOSC database revealed that average doses to critical structures were highly consistent, with the exception of one institution. Survey responses indicated that most centers followed published guidelines regarding dose and prescription point. Dose rate ranged from 51 to 118 cGy/h. As of 2018, most institutions use pre-loaded plaques and fundus photographs and/or computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging in planning. CONCLUSIONS: While there were differences in dosimetric practices, overall agreement in plaque brachytherapy practices was high among OOSC institutions. Clinical margins and planning systems were similar among institutions, while prescription dose, dose rates, and dosimetry varied.
BACKGROUND: Treatment planning for I-125 plaque therapy for uveal melanoma has advanced significantly since the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study trial, with more widely available image-guided planning and improved dosimetry. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated real-world practice patterns for I-125 plaque brachytherapy in the United States by studying practice patterns at centers that comprise the Ocular Oncology Study Consortium (OOSC). METHODS: The OOSC database and responses to a treatment practice survey were evaluated. The database contains treatment information from 9 institutions. Patients included in the database were treated between 2010 and 2014. The survey was conducted in 2018 and current treatment planning methods and prescriptions were queried. RESULTS: Examination of the OOSC database revealed that average doses to critical structures were highly consistent, with the exception of one institution. Survey responses indicated that most centers followed published guidelines regarding dose and prescription point. Dose rate ranged from 51 to 118 cGy/h. As of 2018, most institutions use pre-loaded plaques and fundus photographs and/or computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging in planning. CONCLUSIONS: While there were differences in dosimetric practices, overall agreement in plaque brachytherapy practices was high among OOSC institutions. Clinical margins and planning systems were similar among institutions, while prescription dose, dose rates, and dosimetry varied.
Authors: Paul A Saconn; Christopher J Gee; Craig M Greven; Thomas P McCoy; Kenneth E Ekstrand; Kathryn M Greven Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bradford A Perez; Pradeep Mettu; Lejla Vajzovic; Douglas Rivera; Ali Alkaissi; Beverly A Steffey; Jing Cai; Sandra Stinnett; Jonathan J Dutton; Edward G Buckley; Edward Halperin; Lawrence B Marks; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; David G Kirsch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sou-Tung Chiu-Tsao; Melvin A Astrahan; Paul T Finger; David S Followill; Ali S Meigooni; Christopher S Melhus; Firas Mourtada; Mary E Napolitano; Ravinder Nath; Mark J Rivard; D W O Rogers; Rowan M Thomson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: James P Bolling; Roi Dagan; Michael Rutenberg; Maria Mamalui-Hunter; Steven J Buskirk; Michael G Heckman; Alexander P Hochwald; Roelf Slopsema Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-12-22
Authors: Neil Chevli; Raed J Zuhour; Jay A Messer; Waqar Haque; Amy C Schefler; Eric H Bernicker; Patricia Chevez-Barrios; Andrew M Farach; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2022-04-02