A randomized trial evaluating a novel hydrogel packing system compared to standard packing during image-guided high-dose rate brachytherapy boost for cervical cancer.

Brachytherapy Cervical cancer Radiation therapy Vaginal packing

Journal

Brachytherapy
ISSN: 1873-1449
Titre abrégé: Brachytherapy
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101137600

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 22 12 2023
revised: 02 02 2024
accepted: 16 02 2024
medline: 23 3 2024
pubmed: 23 3 2024
entrez: 22 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to compare the use of a novel vaginal hydrogel packing system (BrachyGel) to standard vaginal packing (VP) during high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). This cross-over study included LACC patients receiving HDR BT boost (intracavitary +/- interstitial). All patients received alternating gauze or BrachyGel VP on Arms A and B. Patients, physicians, and physicists evaluated BT characteristics via a 4-point Likert scale. Adverse events (AEs) were prospectively collected and scored per CTCAE. The 20 patients enrolled. The mean bladder D2cc difference between gauze and BrachyGel in Arm A was 0.117 Gray (Gy) and in Arm B 0.013 Gy. The mean difference in rectum D2cc in Arm A and Arm B was -0.189 Gy and -0.191 Gy, respectively. The mean dose to 90% of the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) for gauze compared to BrachyGel was -0.032 Gy (95% CI: 0.472, 0.409). Patient-reported discomfort was similar with BrachyGel and gauze ("mild/moderate" 70.0% vs 74.0%, respectively). The clarity of VP was similar between BrachyGel and gauze (86.8% vs 89.7%, respectively). The completeness of VP was more frequently "excellent/good" with BrachyGel (79.0%) compared to gauze (56.4%). The ease of packing was more frequently "extremely easy" with BrachyGel (21.2% vs 0%). No serious AEs were reported. This randomized trial found no clinically significant difference in OAR or HR-CTV dosimetry between BrachyGel and standard VP. BrachyGel performed well compared to gauze for the patient and physician use experience.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38519352
pii: S1538-4721(24)00035-7
doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2024.02.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Kara D Romano (KD)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. Electronic address: ked7c@virginia.edu.

Gina Petroni (G)

School of Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Kristi Ward (K)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Wendy Zheng (W)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Matthew Mistro (M)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Bruce Libby (B)

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Christopher McLaughlin (C)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Timothy N Showalter (TN)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Einsley M Janowski (EM)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Classifications MeSH