Search

Postoperative external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with superficial X-rays or electrons and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR BT) are both viable options for managing keloid scars. However, complex keloid scars are especially challenging to manage. We aim to compare the benefit and challenges between interstitial HDR BT and electron EBRT in treating the complex keloids. Three patients with 7 complex keloids: 3 jaw lines, 1 postauricular, 1 posterior neck, and 2 chest walls are included in this study. All patients are treated to 6 Gy x 3 fractions with HDR BT using the flexible interstitial catheters, and electron EBRT plans were created retrospectively for dosimetric comparison. The average D 90 is 21.8 ± 8.3 Gy (1 SD) (121%) and 16.9 ± 1.9 Gy (1SD) (94%) in HDR and EBRT plans, respectively. The average treatment time was 7 minutes per patient (range: 6 – 8.5 minutes) for the HDR BT. Dosimetric comparison reveals that HDR plans provide superior coverage to the keloid scars than the EBRT plans. Clinical workflow is streamlined with HDR procedures. The cosmetic outcome with the interstitial HDR BT is satisfactory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare brachytherapy to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with respect to overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) among NSCLC patients undergoing limited surgical resection. Methods: All cases of T1-4 N0 M0 NSCLC undergoing limited resection and either brachytherapy or EBRT diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Chi-square test and Fisher's exact analysis were used to analyze categorical variables while Student's t-test was used to analyze continuous variables. Univariate analysis to assess for differences in survival with respect to covariates was performed with the log-rank test. Multivariable analysis was performed with Cox proportional hazards regression models among the entire cohort and after sub-stratification by T stage. Results: Among 543 patients, 471 underwent EBRT and 72 underwent brachytherapy. Brachytherapy demonstrated improved OS and DSS on univariate analysis as compared to EBRT (p < 0.05). Cox regression also demonstrated improved OS and DSS with brachytherapy (HR 0.604; 95% CI [0.380; 0.961] and HR 0.524; 95% CI [0.303; 0.908], respectively). Sub-cohort analysis demonstrated significant improvement in survival only among patients with T1 disease with similar survival between brachytherapy and EBRT among higher stage disease. Conclusions: Patients undergoing brachytherapy for T1-T4, N0, M0 NSCLC demonstrated at least similar survival as compared to those undergoing EBRT among patients undergoing limited resection. Improved survival was demonstrated among patients with T1 disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To characterize inventions and assess trends in brachytherapy innovation based on brachytherapy-related patents awarded across the past 2 decades and provide insights that will help inform future research and entrepreneurship in the field. The United States Patent and Trademark Office database was searched for patents awarded between 1999 and 2018 with a classification code corresponding to the broadest brachytherapy search category. Patent characteristics were stratified and compared by geographic location, affiliation, and theme of invention. There were 202 brachytherapy-related patents awarded from 2009 to 2018, which indicates a 56% increase in patent productivity and brachytherapy innovation compared with the previous decade from 1999 to 2008. Patents had an industry affiliation in 83% of cases from 1999 to 2008 and in 76% of cases from 2009 to 2018. Meanwhile, academic participation in brachytherapy patent innovation rose from 4% to 11% in that time. The focus and theme of inventions evolved across time, with radiation sources being the most common theme from 1999 to 2008 and falling to third place in 2009–2018. Conversely, development of brachytherapy-related patents involving exogenous agents such as drug-conjugates, radiosensitizers, and adjuncts to treatment increased substantially in the subsequent decade. While no collaboration was observed between academia and industry between 1999 and 2008, notable partnerships emerged in the subsequent decade which amounted to almost 5% of all patents awarded between 2009 and 2018. There has been an increase in overall brachytherapy patent production over time, and this has been accompanied by a greater variety of distinct patent themes. Collaboration between industry and academia is rare. Knowledge of brachytherapy patents may inform future research innovation in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]