Search

Purpose The aim of this study was to analyze the heart dose for left-sided breast cancer that can be achieved during daily practice in patients treated with multicatheter brachytherapy (MCBT) accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) and deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) whole-breast irradiation (WBI) using a simultaneous integrated tumor bed boost (SIB)—two different concepts which nonetheless share some patient overlap. Materials and methods We analyzed the nominal average dose (Dmean) to the heart as well as the biologically effective dose (BED) and the equivalent dose in 2‑Gy fractions (EQD2) for an α/β of 3 in 30 MCBT-APBI patients and 22 patients treated with DIBH plus SIB. For further dosimetric comparison, we contoured the breast planning target volume (PTV) in each of the brachytherapy planning CTs according to the ESTRO guidelines and computed tangential field plans. Mean dose (Dmean), EQD2 Dmean, and BED Dmean for three dosing schemes were calculated: 50 Gy/25 fractions and two hypofractionated regimens, i.e., 40.05 Gy/15 fractions and 26 Gy/5 fractions. Furthermore, we calculated tangential field plans without a boost for the 22 cases treated with SIB with the standard dosing scheme of 40.05 Gy/15 fractions. Results MCBT and DIBH radiation therapy both show low-dose exposure of the heart. As expected, hypofractionation leads to sparing of the heart dose. Although MCBT plans were not optimized regarding dose to the heart, Dmean differed significantly between MCBT and DIBH (1.28 Gy vs. 1.91 Gy, p p Conclusion In daily practice, both DIBH radiation therapy as well as MCBT show a very low heart exposure and may thus reduce long term cardiac morbidity as compared to currently available long-term clinical data of patients treated with conventional tangential field plans in free breathing. Our analysis confirms particularly good cardiac sparing with MCBT-APBI, so that this technique should be offered to patients with left-sided breast cancer if the tumor-associated eligibility criteria are fulfilled.

Purpose The Working Group for Neurooncology of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO; AG NRO) in cooperation with members of the Neurooncological Working Group of the German Cancer Society (DKG-NOA) aimed to define a practical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of radiation-induced necrosis (RN) of the central nervous system (CNS). Methods Panel members of the DEGRO working group invited experts, participated in a series of conferences, supplemented their clinical experience, performed a literature review, and formulated recommendations for medical treatment of RN, including bevacizumab, in clinical routine. Conclusion Diagnosis and treatment of RN requires multidisciplinary structures of care and defined processes. Diagnosis has to be made on an interdisciplinary level with the joint knowledge of a neuroradiologist, radiation oncologist, neurosurgeon, neuropathologist, and neurooncologist. If the diagnosis of blood–brain barrier disruptions (BBD) or RN is likely, treatment should be initiated depending on the symptoms, location, and dynamic of the lesion. Multiple treatment options are available (such as observation, surgery, steroids, and bevacizumab) and the optimal approach should be discussed in an interdisciplinary setting. In this practice guideline, we offer detailed treatment strategies for various scenarios.