PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10554641

Breast boost--why, how, when...?

J Hammer·J J Mazeron·E Van Limbergen
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast conservation management including tumorectomy or quadrantectomy and external beam radiotherapy with a dose of 45 to 50 Gy in the treatment of small breast carcinomas is generally accepted. The use of a radiation boost--in particular for specific subgroups--has not been clarified. With regard to the boost technique there is some controversy between groups emphasizing the value of electron boost treatment and groups pointing out the value of interstitial boost treatment. This controversy has become even more complicated as there is an increasing number of institutions reporting the use of HDR interstitial brachytherapy for boost treatment. The most critical issue with regard to interstitial HDR brachytherapy is the assumed serious long-term morbidity after a high single radiation dose as used in HDR-treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: This article gives a perspective and recommendations on some aspects of this issue (indication, timing, target volume, dose and dose rate). CONCLUSION: More information about the indication for a boost is to be expected from the EORTC trial 22881/10882. Careful selection of treatment procedures for specific subgroups of patients and refinement in surgical procedures and radiotherapy techniques may be useful in improving the clinical and cosmetic results in breast conservation therapy. Prospective trials comparing on the one hand different boost techniques and on the other hand particular morphologic criteria in treatments with boost and without boost are needed to give more detailed recommendations for boost indications and for boost techniques.

Explore related subjects

BrachytherapyBreast NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansMastectomy, SegmentalRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, AdjuvantTreatment OutcomeJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Hammer, J J Mazeron, E Van Limbergen. 1999. Breast boost--why, how, when...?. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000660050057

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Dosimetric and radiographic correlates to prostate brachytherapy-related rectal complications.

Despite rates of radiation proctitis reported in the 1% to 9% range in most series, there is little information regarding rectal morbidity and dosimetric parameters. Accordingly, we have analyzed computed tomography (CT)-based dosimetric parameters based on a series of patients with endoscopically proven radiation proctitis. Nine patients diagnosed with radiation proctitis on endoscopy were identified in a prior review of 160 consecutively treated patients at the University of Washington in 1997. For each proctitis patient, two patients with no rectal bleeding matched for prostate size, isotope, and dose were selected as controls. Axial CT images obtained 2 to 4 hour postoperatively were used for postimplant dosimetry. Dose volume histograms of the rectum, surface area of the outer rectal wall receiving > or = 100% of the prescribed dose, maximum rectal dose, and length of rectum receiving > or = 100% prescription were obtained. Preimplant CT scans were used to group patients into three categories based on the amount of apparent rectal contact with the prostate. All rectal dosimetric parameters were statistically different between patients with or without rectal bleeding. The mean surface area receiving at least 100% prescription dose was 3.1 cm(2) for the controls vs. 6.9 cm(2) for the rectal bleeders (P = 0.001). The volume of rectum receiving at least 100% of prescription dose was 0.6 cc for the controls vs. 2.5 cc for the bleeders (P = 0.00008). Patients with full prostate-rectal contact had significantly higher rectal dose parameters compared to those with partial or no rectal contact. All nine proctitis patients were in the full-rectal-contact group compared to only seven of 18 (39%) controls. This detailed dosimetric analysis shows higher rectal doses for patients with radiation proctitis, making it a potential method of identifying patients at higher risk for receiving excessive rectal doses based on the anatomic relationship between the rectum and prostate on CT scan. Published 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Brachytherapy↗
PubMed2001

Intraoperative planning and evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy: report of the American Brachytherapy Society.

PURPOSE: The preplanned technique used for permanent prostate brachytherapy has limitations that may be overcome by intraoperative planning. The goal of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) project was to assess the current intraoperative planning process and explore the potential for improvement in intraoperative treatment planning (ITP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Members of the ABS with expertise in ITP performed a literature review, reviewed their clinical experience with ITP, and explored the potential for improving the technique. RESULTS: The ABS proposes the following terminology in regard to prostate planning process: *Preplanning--Creation of a plan a few days or weeks before the implant procedure. *Intraoperative planning--Treatment planning in the operating room (OR): the patient and transrectal ultrasound probe are not moved between the volume study and the seed insertion procedure. * Intraoperative preplanning--Creation of a plan in the OR just before the implant procedure, with immediate execution of the plan. *Interactive planning--Stepwise refinement of the treatment plan using computerized dose calculations derived from image-based needle position feedback. *Dynamic dose calculation--Constant updating of dose distribution calculations using continuous deposited seed position feedback. Both intraoperative preplanning and interactive planning are currently feasible and commercially available and may help to overcome many of the limitations of the preplanning technique. Dosimetric feedback based on imaged needle positions can be used to modify the ITP. However, the dynamic changes in prostate size and shape and in seed position that occur during the implant are not yet quantifiable with current technology, and ITP does not obviate the need for postimplant dosimetric analysis. The major current limitation of ITP is the inability to localize the seeds in relation to the prostate. Dynamic dose calculation can become a reality once these issues are solved. Future advances can be expected in methods of enhancing seed identification, in imaging techniques, and in the development of better source delivery systems. Additionally, ITP should be correlated with outcome studies, using dosimetric, toxicity, and efficacy endpoints. CONCLUSION: ITP addresses many of the limitations of current permanent prostate brachytherapy and has some advantages over the preplanned technique. Further technologic advancement will be needed to achieve dynamic real-time calculation of dose distribution from implanted sources, with constant updating to allow modification of subsequent seed placement and consistent, ideal dose distribution within the target volume.

Brachytherapy↗