MRI-Directed Brachytherapy for Cancer of the Uterine Cervix: A Case Report, Review, and Perspective on the Importance of Widespread Use of This Technological Advance in the United States.

3-d brachytherapy concurrent chemoradiation definitive treatment hdr (high dose rate) brachytherapy image-guided brachytherapy local control locally advanced cervical cancer mri-based brachytherapy pelvic control radiation therapy

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Jun 2021
Historique:
entrez: 11 6 2021
pubmed: 12 6 2021
medline: 12 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Cervical cancer remains a major health challenge in the United States (US), especially among the low socioeconomic and African American populations. The demographics of Mississippi constitute a relatively high percentage of this high-risk population. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with concurrent chemotherapy and followed by brachytherapy is the gold standard of treatment for stage IB3 through IVA cervical cancer. Arguably, brachytherapy is the most important component of this treatment process. Patterns of Care studies (PCS) and other more recent studies have shown that brachytherapy cannot be omitted or replaced by conventional or image-guided EBRT. The last decade has witnessed the expanding use of image-guided brachytherapy (IGBT). Studies have established the superiority of IGBT over point-based brachytherapy. MRI is associated with superior soft tissue definition compared with CT and is emerging as the new standard of care. The Gynaecological Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology [(GYN) GEC-ESTRO] have recommended that the dose be prescribed to the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV). This volume includes residual tumor present at the time of brachytherapy, the cervix, and any gray areas seen on the scan. The (GYN) GEC-ESTRO has shown that a dose of >8500 cGy delivered in <50 days results in an approximate 10% increase in pelvic control (PC), disease-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) compared to historical controls. The normal tissue toxicity is comparable or better than historical controls as well. This dose, while maintaining normal tissue constraints, may only be achievable with a hybrid intracavitary/interstitial (IC/IS) needle device guided by MRI-based targeting.  The University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) has initiated an MRI-based cervical brachytherapy program and has treated 18 patients to date; our experience confirms the above findings. In this report, we propose that MRI guidance is necessary and a hybrid IC/IS needle device is required to achieve adequate dose coverages.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34113529
doi: 10.7759/cureus.15495
pmc: PMC8186450
doi:

Types de publication

Case Reports

Langues

eng

Pagination

e15495

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021, Ahmed et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jul - Aug;10(4):220-234
pubmed: 32473857
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018 Jul;30(7):397-399
pubmed: 29731385
Brachytherapy. 2017 Jan - Feb;16(1):22-43
pubmed: 28109631
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Jul;100(1):116-23
pubmed: 21821305
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 1;25(19):2804-10
pubmed: 17502627
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Sep;120(3):428-433
pubmed: 27134181
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010 Sep;22(7):590-601
pubmed: 20594810
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Apr;20(4):667-76
pubmed: 2004942
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Sep;120(3):412-419
pubmed: 27396811
Brachytherapy. 2017 Mar - Apr;16(2):353-365
pubmed: 27965118
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Nov 15;60(4):1144-53
pubmed: 15519786
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Jun;89(3):343-53
pubmed: 12798694
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Mar 1;22(5):872-80
pubmed: 14990643
J Clin Oncol. 1999 May;17(5):1339-48
pubmed: 10334517
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Mar 1;91(3):540-7
pubmed: 25680598
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Nov;135(2):231-8
pubmed: 25172763
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 10;26(35):5802-12
pubmed: 19001332
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Sep 1;75(1):56-63
pubmed: 19289267
Radiother Oncol. 2007 May;83(2):148-55
pubmed: 17531904
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):653-7
pubmed: 21345618
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 1;99(3):608-617
pubmed: 29280456
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 May 1;104(1):157-164
pubmed: 30605752
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Nov 15;63(4):1083-92
pubmed: 16099599
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Jan 15;43(2):351-8
pubmed: 10030261
Cancer. 1983 Mar 1;51(5):959-67
pubmed: 6821861
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Jan;118(1):160-6
pubmed: 26780997
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Nov;139(2):288-94
pubmed: 26364808
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Jun;103(3):305-13
pubmed: 22633469
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Sep;120(3):434-440
pubmed: 27113795
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2014;35(2):121-7
pubmed: 24772912
Radiother Oncol. 2021 May;158:312-320
pubmed: 33545254
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1083-90
pubmed: 25216857
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jun 1;89(2):249-56
pubmed: 24411621
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Dec;151(3):573-578
pubmed: 30333082
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Sep;120(3):441-446
pubmed: 27350396
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Apr;103(1):113-22
pubmed: 22296748
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Mar;74(3):235-45
pubmed: 15763303
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Apr;11(4):XC06-XC10
pubmed: 28571246
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jun 1;68(2):491-8
pubmed: 17331668
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Sep 1;87(1):111-9
pubmed: 23849695
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jan 11;9:48-60
pubmed: 29594251

Auteurs

Hiba Z Ahmed (HZ)

Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.

Srinivasan Vijayakumar (S)

Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.

William N Duggar (WN)

Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.

Robert Allbright (R)

Radiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.

Classifications MeSH