High-dose-rate surface brachytherapy as a treatment option for renal cell carcinoma cutaneous metastases.
HDR brachytherapy
palliative therapy
renal cell carcinoma
skin metastases
Journal
Journal of contemporary brachytherapy
ISSN: 1689-832X
Titre abrégé: J Contemp Brachytherapy
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 101506276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
24
02
2021
accepted:
12
03
2021
entrez:
14
6
2021
pubmed:
15
6
2021
medline:
15
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to present a case of complete clinical response of renal clear cell carcinoma cutaneous metastases after high-dose-rate surface brachytherapy (HDR sBT). An 81-year-old female diagnosed with stage IV clear cell renal carcinoma reported to our center with painful relapse of two cutaneous metastases after a previous metastasectomy. The patient was disqualified from systemic therapy due to comorbidities, and qualified to attempt a treatment using HDR sBT. The unit equipped with an iridium-192 source was used to deliver 36 Gy/6 Gy in 6 fractions twice weekly. Overall treatment time was 18 days. Two weeks after HDR sBT, complete response was observed in one irradiated location, while the partial response was observed in the latter. EORTC grade 1 skin toxicity was reported in both irradiated fields. Three and five months after the treatment, the patient presented complete response and pain relief in both locations with no signs of relapse. The patient remained in palliative care and died seven months after the treatment due to sudden cardiac death. HDR sBT can be a valuable treatment option for cutaneous metastatic renal cell carcinoma, especially for patients with significant comorbidities. The treatment provided was associated with low toxicity and excellent clinical outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34122574
doi: 10.5114/jcb.2021.105947
pii: 44020
pmc: PMC8170516
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
331-337Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Termedia.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Références
Scand J Urol. 2019 Feb;53(1):9-13
pubmed: 30935265
Ann Oncol. 2012 Apr;23(4):973-80
pubmed: 21890909
Nat Rev Cancer. 2008 Aug;8(8):592-603
pubmed: 18650835
World J Urol. 2016 Aug;34(8):1081-6
pubmed: 26847337
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Jan 1;34(1):251-66
pubmed: 12118559
Eur Urol. 2019 Jan;75(1):74-84
pubmed: 30243799
Radiat Res. 1997 Nov;148(5):443-8
pubmed: 9355869
Case Rep Med. 2010;2010:
pubmed: 20811607
Nat Rev Urol. 2017 Sep;14(9):549-563
pubmed: 28631740
J Urol. 1994 Dec;152(6 Pt 1):2094-5
pubmed: 7966685
Br J Radiol. 1989 Aug;62(740):679-94
pubmed: 2670032
J Urol. 1997 Sep;158(3 Pt 1):746-9
pubmed: 9258072
Cancer. 1993 Apr 1;71(7):2276-85
pubmed: 8095848
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1993 Aug;29(2 Pt 1):228-36
pubmed: 8335743
Dermatol Online J. 2007 Oct 13;13(4):6
pubmed: 18319003
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020 Mar 18;12:1758835920907504
pubmed: 32215057
J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2019 Oct;11(5):458-461
pubmed: 31749855
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Mar;126(3):386-393
pubmed: 29370985
Cancer. 1997 Dec 15;80(12 Suppl):2519-28
pubmed: 9406705
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jan;70(1):7-30
pubmed: 31912902
N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 05;378(14):1277-1290
pubmed: 29562145
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):93-105
pubmed: 26935559
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Sep;2(5):515-523
pubmed: 31302061
Lancet. 2019 May 18;393(10185):2051-2058
pubmed: 30982687
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Dec;21(12):1563-1573
pubmed: 33284113
Brachytherapy. 2017 Jan - Feb;16(1):223-229
pubmed: 27908679
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 26;376(4):354-366
pubmed: 28121507
Ann Oncol. 2019 May 1;30(5):706-720
pubmed: 30788497
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):e549-61
pubmed: 25439697
Radiat Oncol. 2018 May 16;13(1):96
pubmed: 29769103
Eur Urol. 2019 Jan;75(1):100-110
pubmed: 30327274