eISSN: 2081-2841
ISSN: 1689-832X
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
Current Issue Archive Supplements Articles in Press Journal Information Aims and Scope Editorial Office Editorial Board Register as Author Register as Reviewer Instructions for Authors Abstracting and indexing Subscription Advertising Information Links
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

4/2023
vol. 15
 
Share:
Share:
Original paper

Oncologic outcomes after MRI-assisted image-guided brachytherapy with hybrid interstitial and intra-cavitary applicators under moderate sedation for locally advanced cervix cancer

Kiattisa Sommat
1
,
Swee Peng Yap
1
,
Richard Ming Chert Yeo
1
,
Hoon Seng Khoo Tan
1
,
Yoke Lim Soong
1
,
Jeffrey Kit Loong Tuan
1
,
Iris Huili Sin
1

  1. Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore
J Contemp Brachytherapy 2023; 15, 4: 245–252
Online publish date: 2023/08/30
Article file
- Oncologic outcomes.pdf  [0.35 MB]
Get citation
 
 

Purpose

Interstitial brachytherapy in patients with locally advanced cervix cancer has gained attention in recent years, with the emergence of modern hybrid intra-cavitary and interstitial (IC/IS) brachytherapy applicators. Historically, common applicators for gynecological interstitial brachytherapy included Syed-Neblett template and Martinez universal perineal interstitial template (MUPIT), with transperineal insertion of interstitial needles [1, 2]. However, these approaches are highly invasive, requiring in-patient stay, and are always performed in an operating theatre under spinal, epidural, or general anesthesia. Although transperineal interstitial brachytherapy would still play a role in treating disease in the lower vagina, the necessity of skills and expertise has resulted in a decline in popularity in favor of hybrid applicators.

Hybrid applicators were developed to allow trans-vaginal needle placement within the ring or ovoids into the parametrium, but this technique requires more additional time and learning curve compared with standard intra-cavitary (IC) brachytherapy. Hybrid applicators provide multiple technical advantages; they are less operator-dependent, less invasive, and less painful to patients, and thus suitable for daily procedures. These favorable attributes can result in a reduction in anesthetist requirement and hospitalization stay with potential resource and cost savings. Moderate sedation with midazolam and/or fentanyl was prospectively reported to be safe, effective, and therefore the desired sedatives are intended for cases who are not supervised by an anesthetist [3-6]. The American Brachytherapy Society recommends that moderate sedation should be used for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy whenever possible [7]. In our institution, the routine practice for gynecological brachytherapy involves the use of moderate sedation due to limited access to anesthesia services. However, it is worth noting that the existing literature primarily focuses on the use of spinal, epidural, or general anesthesia with hybrid applicators; however, data on the use of moderate sedation are limited [8]. In January 2017, our institution introduced the IC/IS brachytherapy service to address the needs of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. In a previous publication, specific details regarding the anesthesia aspect of moderate sedation were provided, and demonstrated the feasibility and tolerance of hybrid applicator placement under moderate sedation [6]. In the present study, our primary focus was to report on the oncologic outcome and toxicity profile of patients who underwent this approach.

Material and methods

From January 2017 to April 2021, a total of thirty-three patients with non-metastatic cervical cancer and the American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I-II underwent sixty-nine fractions of interstitial brachytherapy using hybrid applicators in the Department of Radiation Oncology (DRO), National Cancer Centre, Singapore [9]. All patients were staged according to the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system [10]. Data were prospectively collected and analyzed retrospectively. All patients referred to DRO of our institution were routinely requested to sign an informed consent form to collect clinical data used for the purpose of research.

All patients were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 45 Gy and 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy per fraction, with nodal boost ranging from 3.6 to 9.0 Gy. Patients received weekly cisplatin of 40 mg/m2 up to six cycles concurrently with EBRT. Brachytherapy commenced either on the final week of EBRT or within 1 week of finishing EBRT. No chemotherapy or EBRT were allowed on the days of brachytherapy.

All patients underwent clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of pelvis without applicator in situ within one week before the first session of brachytherapy, to evaluate the extent of tumor response. Clinical and radiological findings of tumor extent pre-brachytherapy would aid in determining the suitability for interstitial brachytherapy based on predicted isodose distribution of intra-cavitary brachytherapy alone. Patients were treated with a variety of modern hybrid interstitial brachytherapy using either tandem with ovoids (Utrecht applicator) or tandem with ring (interstitial ring applicator and Venezia applicator). Final choice of an applicator was determined by a combination of factors, including availability of applicators, patient anatomy, and tumor topography. Number, position, and depth of the required needles were pre-planned by a radiation oncologist, with an input from a radiologist and brachytherapy physicist.

Every patient underwent a total of three to four fractions of brachytherapy, with at least one fraction of interstitial brachytherapy, and the remaining fractions with standard intra-cavitary brachytherapy. A commonly employed fractionation schedule consisted of two fractions of interstitial brachytherapy, spaced one week apart. Patients who experienced significant tumor shrinkage at the time of second fraction of interstitial brachytherapy subsequently received one to two fractions of standard intra-cavitary brachytherapy. Patients with anatomical topography unsuitable for intra-cavitary treatment or those who did not responded well after each insertion of interstitial brachytherapy, received interstitial brachytherapy in all fractions. All brachytherapy insertions were performed by a single radiation oncologist in an outpatient setting under moderate sedation with the use of midazolam and fentanyl, independent of anesthetists. The details of sedation and interstitial brachytherapy technique were previously described. Insertion time (from time out to end of vagina packing) were recorded [6].

Treatment planning was performed with either computed tomography (CT) or MRI, depending on the availability of MRI slots. High-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and intermediate-risk clinical target volume (IR-CTV) was contoured according to European recommendations from Haie-Meder et al. [11], GEC-ESTRO Working Group, and Viswanathan et al. [12], and CT-standardized contour guidelines using an Oncentra Brachy treatment planning software. Organs at risk (OARs), such as the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon were also contoured. Brachytherapy plan was optimized to achieve D90 (minimum dose covering 90% of target volume), and HR-CTV was at least 6.5 Gy per fraction while keeping D2cc (minimum dose to the most irradiated 2 cc) to OARs as low as possible. The final planning aim was to achieve HR-CTV D90 of 85 Gy EQD2 or greater; the dose constraint was D2cc of 90 Gy EQD2 or smaller for the bladder, and D2cc of 75 Gy EQD2 or smaller for the rectum and sigmoid. Reduction from four to three fractions of brachytherapy was implemented in cases of good tumor response, where fractional HR-CTV D90 > 8 Gy was achieved while still adhering to dose constraints of OARs. Patients were treated with MicroSelectron HDR (Nucletron), and iridium-192 was used as the treatment source.

Data analysis

Acute complications were assessed during brachytherapy until discharge. Patients were followed up at 1 month post-treatment and then every three to four months for the first two years, followed by every four to six months thereafter for up to five years after completion of radiotherapy. Routine follow-up consisted of evaluation of symptoms, treatment-related toxicities, and physical examination. Imaging was performed if recurrence was suspected. Toxicities were graded according to CTCAE version 5.0. All survival and follow-up details were recorded until July 31, 2021. All statistical analysis were carried out using STATA software version 14.2 (StataCorp LP, Texas, USA).

Results

Thirty-three patients with locally advanced cervical cancers treated with hybrid interstitial and intra-cavitary brachytherapy applicators were included for analysis. The median age was 58 (range, 27-77) years. The majority of patients (n = 31, 93.9%) received concurrent chemotherapy. Eighteen patients (54.5%) underwent a total of three fractions of brachytherapy. Twenty-eight patients (84.8%) were treated with at least 2 fractions of interstitial brachytherapy. Patient and treatment characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Patient and treatment characteristics (n = 33)

Variable
Age (year), median (range)58 (27-77)
Histology, n (%)
Squamous cell carcinoma26 (78.8)
Adenocarcinoma4 (12.1)
Others3 (9.1)
FIGO stage, n (%)
IB21 (3.0)
IIB11 (33.3)
IIIB12 (36.4)
IIIC17 (21.2)
IIIC22 (6.1)
ASA status, n (%)
I23 (69.7)
II10 (30.3)
Chemotherapy use, n (%)
No2 (6.1)
Yes31 (93.9)
EBRT, n (%)
3D CRT27 (81.8)
VMAT6 (18.2)
Frequency of IC/IS per patient, n (%)
15 (15.2)
221 (63.6)
36 (18.2)
41 (3.0)
Total fractions of brachytherapy, n (%)
318 (54.5)
2 IC/IS & 1 IC12 (36.4)
3 IC/IS & 0 IC4 (12.1)
1 IC/IS & 2 IC2 (6.1)
415 (45.5)
2 IC/IS & 2 IC9 (27.3)
1 IC/IS & 3 IC3 (9.1)
3 IC/IS & 1 IC2 (6.1)
4 IC/IS & 0 IC1 (3.0)

[i] EBRT – external beam radiotherapy, VMAT – volumetric modulated arc therapy, 3D-CRT – 3 dimensional conformal therapy, IC/IS – hybrid intra-cavitary and interstitial brachytherapy, IC – intra-cavitary brachytherapy

A total of sixty-nine fractions of hybrid IC/IS brachytherapy were performed (Table 2). Interstitial ring applicator was used in 10 fractions (14.5%), Utrecht applicator was applied in 32 fractions (46.4%), and Venezia applicator was used in 27 fractions (39.1%). Overall, a total of 320 needles (median of 5 needles per fraction) were implanted, with a median insertion depth of 3 cm (range, 1.5-4.0 cm). The mean doses for midazolam and fentanyl were 2.9 mg per fraction and 59.3 mcg per fraction, respectively. MRI-based planning was carried out in eleven (15.9%) out of sixty-nine fractions, whereas CT-based planning was performed in the remaining fifty-eight (84.1%) fractions. The median insertion time was 28.5 minutes (range, 9-85 min.).

Table 2

Interstitial brachytherapy application characteristics of 69 fractions

Variable  
Imaging modality during brachytherapy, n (%)
MRI11 (15.9)
CT58 (84.1)
Total No. of needles320
No. of needles per fraction, median (range)5 (2.0-8.0)
Depth of needles (cm), median (range)3 (1.5-4.0)
Midazolam dose (mg), mean (range)2.9 (0.5-5.0)
Fentanyl dose (mcg), mean (range)59.3 (10.0-140.0)
Insertion time, min., median (range)28.5 (9.0-85.0)
Applicator type, n (%)
Interstitial ring10 (14.5)
Utrecht32 (46.4)
Venezia27 (39.1)
HR-CTV at the time of first brachytherapy (cc), median (range)34.5 (17.8-74.7)
Fractional HR-CTV D90 (Gy), median (range)7.8 (3.6-9.9)
Fractional IR-CTV D90 (Gy), median (range)5.1 (2.9-7.3)
Fractional rectum D2cc (Gy), median (range)4.4 (1.3-6.3)
Fractional bladder D2cc (Gy), median (range)5.3 (3.3-7.1)
Fractional sigmoid D2cc (Gy), median (range)4.1 (2.3-5.8)
Fractional small intestine D2cc (Gy), median (range)3.4 (1.3-6.2)
Total EQD2 HR-CTV D90 (Gy), median (range)86.1 (76.3-93.1)
Total EQD2 IR-CTV D90 (Gy), median (range)68.3 (62.2-76.5)
Total EQD2 rectum D2cc (Gy), median (range)71.8 (63.0-76.0)
Total EQD2 bladder D2cc (Gy), median (range)81.5 (54.8-88.4)
Total EQD2 sigmoid D2cc (Gy), median (range)69.0 (48.4-75.0)
Total EQD2 small intestine D2cc (Gy), median (range)58.3 (48.4-73.1)

[i] HR-CTV – high-risk clinical target volume, IR-CTV – intermediate-risk clinical target volume

The median HR-CTV volume at the time of first brachytherapy within our cohort was 34.5 cc (range, 17.8-74.7 cc). The median fractional D90 HR-CTV was 7.8 Gy (range, 3.6-9.9 Gy), and the median total EQD2 HR-CTV D90 and intermediate-risk clinical target volume (IR-CTV) was 86.1 Gy (range, 76.3-93.1 Gy) and 68.3 Gy (range, 62.2-76.5 Gy), respectively. The median total D2cc (dose to the most irradiated 2 cc of volume) EQD2 of the rectum, bladder, sigmoid colon, and small intestine was 71.8 Gy, 81.5 Gy, 69.0 Gy, and 58.3 Gy, respectively. Larger volume of HR-CTV was predicted for worse local control (HR = 1.08, p = 0.005) and overall survival (HR = 1.04, p = 0.015) (Table 3). A higher HR-CTV D90 dose was shown to be associated with improved overall survival (OS), but not statistically significant (HR = 0.86, p = 0.068).

Table 3

Univariate analysis of local control and overall survival

Local controlOverall survival
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Age (per year)1.03 (0.96-1.10)0.4221.01 (0.97-1.06)0.528
EBRT technique (VMAT vs. 3D-CRT)2.55 (0.46-13.9)0.2812.15 (0.57-8.08)0.255
Stage (III vs. I/II)1.26 (0.23-6.91)0.7861.24 (0.4-3.83)0.705
Histology (adeno/others vs. SCC)2.20 (0.4-12.1)0.3612.01 (0.62-6.56)0.245
HR-CTV volume (per cc)1.08 (1.02-1.13)0.0051.04 (1.0-1.08)0.015
Total EQD2 HR-CTV D90 (per Gy)1.06 (0.85-1.32)0.6220.86 (0.74-1.01)0.068
Total EQD2 IR-CTV D90 (per Gy)1.03 (0.79-1.34)0.8220.96 (0.8-1.16)0.698

[i] HR – hazard ratio, EBRT – external beam radiotherapy, VMAT – volumetric modulated arc therapy, 3D-CRT – 3 dimensional conformal therapy, SCC – squamous cell carcinoma, adeno – adenocarcinoma, HR-CTV – high-risk clinical target volume, IR-CTV – intermediate-risk clinical target volume

At a median follow-up of 28 (range, 8-64) months, 12 patients died, all from cancer recurrence (distant metastasis in 10 patients and local progression in the remaining 2 patients). In all, 6 patients developed local recurrence and 1 patient had persistent disease post-treatment. Distant metastases were observed in 11 patients. The 2-year local control and overall survival rates were 80.7% (95% CI: 61.2-80.9) and 77.7% (95% CI: 58.6-88.7), respectively (Figure 1A, B). The median HR-CTV volume and total EQD2 HR-CTV D90 in 7 patients with local recurrence and persistent disease was 57.5 cc (range, 33.7-74.7 cc), with 86.1 Gy (range, 76.3-90.8 Gy).

Fig. 1

A) Local control – all patients; B) Overall survival – all patients

/f/fulltexts/JCB/51344/JCB-15-51344-g001_min.jpg

One patient experienced significant bleeding during applicator removal, which required application of Monsel’s paste, in addition to routine vaginal packing with adrenaline. One patient had a mal-placement of uterine tandem within the myometrium. There was no case of the entire uterine perforation or OARs’ perforation. None of the patients required in-patient admission or blood transfusion post-procedure.

Concerning late toxicities, a total of seven patients (21.2%) experienced grade 2-3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities, four (12.1%) of them had grade 3 toxicities. There were no grade 4-5 toxicities and no procedural-related deaths. One patient suffered from grade 3 cystitis requiring bladder washout and hospital admission. One patient developed recurrent hematuria from grade 3 cystitis that required multiple hospital admissions and a grade 2 proctitis, which was managed conservatively. Two patients experienced grade 3 radiation proctitis that required argon plasma coagulation, and one of them went under hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Two patients had grade 2 proctitis resolved with conservative management. There were no cases of fistulas. One patient underwent cementoplasy for sacral insufficiency fracture. Two patients developed hydrometra from cervical stenosis that was treated with drainage and cervical dilation. The bladder D2cc EQD2 for 2 patients with late grade 3 GU toxicities were 78.1 Gy and 71.1 Gy. The rectal D2cc EQD2 for 2 patients with late grade 3 GI toxicities were 70.1 Gy and 75 Gy.

Discussion

Continuous advances in gynecological interstitial brachytherapy with modern hybrid interstitial brachytherapy applicators and plastic catheters have altered the brachytherapy landscape. This minimally invasive approach substantially reduced procedure-related morbidity while offering excellent treatment outcomes compared with standard intra-cavitary brachytherapy. Data from the RetroEMBRACE study showed that IC/IS brachytherapy increased the 3-year local control rate by 10% in bulky or poorly responding tumors with HR-CTV ≥ 30 cc showing no significant increase in late toxicities compared with intra-cavitary brachytherapy [13]. Murakami et al. recently reported the results of a large multi-institutional retrospective study including a cohort of 469 patients [14]. IC/IS brachytherapy was associated with higher HR-CTV dose and comparable local control rate with IC brachytherapy, despite patients with more advanced stage, bulkier tumor, and poorer tumor respond to external beam radiotherapy.

The present study summarized our experience with hybrid interstitial brachytherapy applicators implanted under moderate sedation with pre-brachytherapy MRI and CT-based planning in the treatment of locally advanced cervix cancer. Our study, with a median follow-up of 28 months in 33 patients, reported a 2-year local recurrence-free survival and overall survival of 80.7% and 77.7%, respectively. About half of the patients in our cohort (54.5%, n = 18) underwent a total of three fractions of brachytherapy, with 12 out of 18 treated with 2 fractions of interstitial brachytherapy and 1 fraction of intra-cavitary brachytherapy. Reduction in the number of fractions from 4 to 3 is feasible for tumors that exhibit a favorable response after first fraction of interstitial fraction, achieving high HR-CTV D90 dose without violating OARs dose constraints. Such modifications to the fractionation schedule based on early response assessment can be implemented to optimize treatment course and potentially reducing overall treatment duration for selected patients. All seven patients with local recurrence had bulky tumor, with HR-CTV volume from 33.7 to 74.7 cc. The predominant site of recurrence was distant. In terms of tolerability, none of the patients in this study experienced a significant complication related to the sedation or applicator and needle placement. In our cohort, only four patients (12.1%) had grade 3 cystitis or proctitis, and none experienced grade 4 toxicity. The results reported in our series are comparable to existing literature on IC/IS brachytherapy (Table 4) [13, 15-22].

Table 4

Studies of image-guided brachytherapy with hybrid intra-cavitary/interstitial applicators

ReferencesMedian follow-up (months)No. of patientsType of applicatorsUse of pre-brachy imagingMode of image- based planningMode of anesthesiaHR-CTV volume (median, cc)HR-CTV D90IR-CTV D90Bladder D2ccRectum D2ccSigmoid D2ccLocal controlOverall survivalIncidence of late GI toxicityIncidence of late GU toxicity
(median, Gy)
Present study2833Interstitial ring
Utrecht Venezia
MRIMRI, 15.9%
CT, 84.1%
Moderate sedation34.586.168.381.571.869.02-yr, 80.7%2-yr, 77.7%G3, 6.1%G3, 6.1%
Dimopoulus et al. [21]2022ViennaNoYesSpinal or epidural45.685.0 (mean)8366672-yr, 95%2-yr, 43%None G3-4
Fokdal et al. [13]45300Hybrid IC/ISMRI, 97% CT, 3%39.092.07965653-yr, 94%
5-yr, 91%
G2-5, 14.3%G2-5, 16.7%
Walter et al. [16]410VeneziaMRIMRI & CTGeneral or epidural42.090.779.458.764.8
Murakami et al. [22]23.342Hybrid IC/ISMRICTSaddle block or LA & IV sedation37.170.372.464.52-yr, 80.2%2-yr, 81.6%G3+, 7.2%
Mahantshetty et al. [20]3569Vienna IIMRI (if available)MRI, 95.7%
CT, 4.3%
General or spinal69.086.086.068.068.03-yr, 76%, 5-yr, 72%3-yr, 62%
5-yr, 54%
G3-4, 20%
Keller et al. [15]1661Vienna VeneziaNoMRIModerate sedation31.686.171.855.461.21-yr, 80.6% (LRC)1-yr, 86.9%1-yr G3+ GI/GU, 5.7%
1-yr G3+ urethral stenosis, 2%
Rivera et al. [19]24.971UtrechtMRICTModerate sedation37.987.488.370.070.42-yr, 83.6%2-yr, 88.6%G2, 21%
G3, 1%
G2, 12% G3, 1%
Zhang et al. [17, 18]72.3110Utrecht Vienna Multichannel vaginalMRI or CTMRI or CTGeneral36.791.3 (mean)68.8 (mean)77.2 (mean)64.7 (mean)63.5 (mean)3-yr, 90% 5-yr, 90%3-yr, 79.1% 5-yr, 76.4%G2-4, rectum 1-yr, 8.2%
2-yr, 17.3%
3-yr, 18.2%

[i] FU – follow-up, IC/IS – intra-cavitary/interstitial, LA – local anesthesia, IV – intravenous, HR-CTV – high-risk clinical target volume, IR-CTV – intermediate-risk clinical target volume, LRC – locoregional control, G – grade, G3+ – grade 3 and above

Other mono-institutional studies have demonstrated similar promising data regarding oncologic outcomes of brachytherapy with hybrid applicators [16, 17, 23, 24]. Rivera et al. published their experience of hybrid tandem and ovoids with Utrecht applicator in 71 patients treated between 2010 and 2017 [19]. In their series, patients had cervical Smit sleeve insertion prior to brachytherapy, and brachytherapy placement was performed in out-patient setting under moderate sedation. With a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 2-year local control (LC) was 83.6%, loco-regional control was 72.0%, and OS was 88.6%. In their cohort, there were two reported cases of treatment-related fistulas (1 recto-vaginal fistula and 1 vesico-vaginal fistula). Another study by Keller et al. reported outcomes of 61 patients treated with Vienna or Venezia applicators [15]. In their cohort, the 1-year overall survival and loco-regional control was 86.9% and 80.6%, respectively. The 1-year incidence of grade 3 and above genitourinary or gastrointestinal late toxicities was 5.7% with fistula occurring in 7 patients. Zhang et al. performed a retrospective analysis on 110 patients with stage 1B2 to IVA cervical cancer [17, 18]. The hybrid applicators were implanted under general anesthesia, and included Utrecht applicator, Vienna applicator, and multichannel vaginal applicator. With a median follow-up of 72.3 months, the 3-year LC and OS were 90.0% and 79.1%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year incidence of grade 2-4 rectum morbidity were 8.2% and 17.3%, respectively.

The importance of MRI in treatment planning for image-guided brachytherapy has been well-established by the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) [11, 25, 26]. Although MRI-based brachytherapy planning in cervical cancer is considered the gold standard, it is however not superior in all aspects. The integration of MRI-based planning into routine HDR brachytherapy has been challenging in many centers in the world, and largely limited by accessibility to MRI scanners, long procedural time, and expensive cost. In our busy tertiary hospital, due to the lack of a dedicated MRI scanner in our department, obtaining an MRI scan at a desired time for every brachytherapy session remains problematic.

In our early experience, we acquire both CT and MR image sets during the first fraction of interstitial brachytherapy until our medical team is confident that target and OARs volume delineation can be performed reliably using CT with pre-brachytherapy MRI. Although we desire to perform MRI planning with applicator in situ, as this is considered the gold standard, it was only possible to arrange an MRI for brachytherapy planning for 11 fractions. In our cohort, all patients had MRI 1 week pre-brachytherapy, and majority (n = 21, 63.6%) had CT-based planning at the time of brachytherapy. Our practice of incorporating MRI in pre-planning setting and using CT only for planning saves procedural time and cost, and is under outpatient practice that can be readily translatable to more radiation therapy centers. Long total procedural time might lead to severe patients’ discomfort, anxiety, and pain [8, 27]. These discomfort had previously been shown to cause movement in patients’ position as well as in the position of needles and applicator, thereby affecting clinical outcomes [28, 29]. Chen et al. reported on applicator placement-related acute side effects during 407 brachytherapy fractions performed in 125 patients [30]. They found that pain and vaginal bleeding were the most common acute side effects, and concluded that reducing total procedural time is helpful to decrease acute side effects, such as hematuria and patients’ discomfort. The results from our previous study showed that the addition of MRI results in an increase of 0.82 hours to the total procedural time compared with CT-based planning [6].

The findings from our study confirm existing evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of hybrid MRI and CT for image-guided brachytherapy. Wakatsuki et al. reported their technique of performing MRI pre-brachytherapy followed by subsequent CT-only based brachytherapy planning [31]. The pre-brachytherapy MRI was applied to pre-plan needle placement for actual insertion, and to facilitate HR-CTV contouring on subsequent CT images at the time of brachytherapy. A similar hybrid MRI/CT technique was reported by Fokdal et al. using MRI for pre-brachytherapy planning with a dummy MUPIT applicator in situ [32]. Murofushi et al. retrospectively reviewed outcomes of 146 patients who underwent pre-brachytherapy MRI within 7 days before first high-dose-rate brachytherapy [33]. They concluded that pre-brachytherapy MRI is beneficial to selected patients who are expected to benefit the most from image-guided adaptive brachytherapy, whilst avoiding the use of inappropriate brachytherapy applicators leading to poor local control.

A systematic review by Wang et al. analyzed 13 studies with a total of 465 patients. The study compared dimensions, DVH parameters of HR-CTV and OARs, and clinical outcomes between CT-only and MRI-based (MRI only or hybrid CT/MRI with at least one fraction of MRI-based brachytherapy) planning in cervical cancer patients [34]. Wang et al. found that in the aspect of HR-CTV dimensions, width was significantly overestimated on CT in all studies, and height could be underestimated when comparing with thickness. As a result, dose parameters for HR-CTV were lower for CT-only approach compared with MRI-based approach. There is only one study that compared clinical outcomes for MRI-only approach with hybrid CT/MRI-based approach, which found comparable cancer control and survival rates. Mahantshetty et al. and a follow-up study by Swamidas et al. have both demonstrated that the CT-based target incorporating real-time trans-rectal ultrasound information was comparable with MRI at the time of brachytherapy [35, 36]. Given the wider availability of CT over MRI, a considerable amount of literature has been published recently by various groups on CT-based contouring consensus to enable more reliable and reproducible target volume delineation [37-39].

In our experience, interstitial brachytherapy using modern hybrid applicators under sedation with pre-brachytherapy MRI to aid CT-based planning, is both time and resource efficient, and can be quickly implemented by radiation oncologists who are experienced in image-based brachytherapy. Despite our encouraging results, some limitations exist in this study, including its single-institution experience, lack of quality-of-life data, and relatively short follow-up. With further maturation of our data, we expect to publish on long-term patient outcomes.

Conclusions

Hybrid IC/IS applicators inserted under moderate sedation is feasible and safe. Image-guided brachytherapy with CT-based planning aided by MRI performed 1 week pre-brachytherapy is associated with favorable outcomes and accepted toxicity profile. This approach present the potential to be cost- and resource-effective.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Feder BH, Syed AM, Neblett D. Treatment of extensive carcinoma of the cervix with the “transperineal parametrial butterfly”: a preliminary report on the revival of waterman’s approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1978; 4: 735-742.

2 

Martinez A, Cox RS, Edmundson GK. A multiple-site perineal applicator (MUPIT) for treatment of prostatic, anorectal, and gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1984; 10: 297-305.

3 

Kim TH. Safety and effectiveness of moderate sedation for radiologic non-vascular intervention. Korean J Radiol 2006; 7: 125-130.

4 

Khader R, Oreadi D, Finkelman M et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of two different sedation sequences for third molar removal in adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 73: 224-231.

5 

Mamula P, Markowitz JE, Neiswender K et al. Safety of intravenous midazolam and fentanyl for pediatric GI endoscopy: prospective study of 1578 endoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 203-210.

6 

Sommat K, Lin JYX, Chew MML et al. Non-anesthetist-administered moderate sedation with midazolam and fentanyl for outpatient MRI-aided hybrid intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy in cervix cancer: a single-institution experience. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2021; 13: 286-293.

7 

Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B et al. The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48: 201-211.

8 

Bhanabhai H, Samant R, E C et al. Pain assessment during conscious sedation for cervical cancer high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Curr Oncol 2013; 20: e307-310.

9 

Knuf KM, Maani CV, Cummings AK. Clinical agreement in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification. Perioper Med (Lond) 2018; 7: 14.

10 

Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 145: 129-135.

11 

Haie-Meder C, Potter R, Van Limbergen E et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 2005; 74: 235-245.

12 

Viswanathan AN, Dimopoulos J, Kirisits C et al. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-based contouring in cervical cancer brachytherapy: results of a prospective trial and preliminary guidelines for standardized contours. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 491-498.

13 

Fokdal L, Sturdza A, Mazeron R et al. Image guided adaptive brachytherapy with combined intracavitary and interstitial technique improves the therapeutic ratio in locally advanced cervical cancer: Analysis from the retroEMBRACE study. Radiother Oncol 2016; 120: 434-440.

14 

Murakami N, Ando K, Murata M et al. An Asian multi-national multi-institutional retrospective study comparing intracavitary versus the hybrid of intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced uterine cervical carcinoma. J Radiat Res 2022; 63: 412-427.

15 

Keller A, Rodríguez-López JL, Patel AK et al. Early outcomes after definitive chemoradiation therapy with Vienna/Venezia hybrid high-dose rate brachytherapy applicators for cervical cancer: A single-institution experience. Brachytherapy 2021; 20: 104-111.

16 

Walter F, Maihofer C, Schuttrumpf L et al. Combined intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy of cervical cancer using the novel hybrid applicator Venezia: Clinical feasibility and initial results. Brachytherapy 2018; 17: 775-781.

17 

Zhang N, Tang Y, Guo X et al. Analysis of dose-effect relationship between DVH parameters and clinical prognosis of definitive radio(chemo)therapy combined with intracavitary/interstitial brachytherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: A single-center retrospective study. Brachytherapy 2020; 19: 194-200.

18 

Zhang N, Liu Y, Han D et al. The relationship between late morbidity and dose-volume parameter of rectum in combined intracavitary/interstitial cervix cancer brachytherapy: A mono-institutional experience. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 693864.

19 

Rivera A, Wassel M, Brodin PN et al. Hybrid tandem and ovoids brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: impact of dose and tumor volume metrics on outcomes. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2021; 13: 158-166.

20 

Mahantshetty U, Sturdza A, Naga CP et al. Vienna-II ring applicator for distal parametrial/pelvic wall disease in cervical cancer brachytherapy: An experience from two institutions: Clinical feasibility and outcome. Radiother Oncol 2019; 141: 123-129.

21 

Dimopoulos JCA, Kirisits C, Petric P et al. The Vienna applicator for combined intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy of cervical cancer: Clinical feasibility and preliminary results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66: 83-90.

22 

Murakami N, Kobayashi K, Shima S et al. A hybrid technique of intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: initial outcomes of a single-institute experience. BMC Cancer 2019; 19: 221.

23 

Serban M, Kirisits C, de Leeuw A et al. Ring versus ovoids and intracavitary versus intracavitary-interstitial applicators in cervical cancer brachytherapy: Results from the EMBRACE I study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 106: 1052-1062.

24 

Rogowski P, Rottler M, Walter F et al. Clinical outcome of combined intracavitary / interstitial brachytherapy using a hybrid applicator in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 166: 576-581.

25 

Dimopoulos JC, Petrow P, Tanderup K et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (IV): Basic principles and parameters for MR imaging within the frame of image based adaptive cervix cancer brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103: 113-122.

26 

Potter R, Georg P, Dimopoulos JC et al. Clinical outcome of protocol based image (MRI) guided adaptive brachytherapy combined with 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011; 100: 116-123.

27 

Kirchheiner K, Czajka-Pepl A, Ponocny-Seliger E et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder after high-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer with 2 fractions in 1 application under spinal/epidural anesthesia: incidence and risk factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 89: 260-267.

28 

Shi D, He MY, Zhao ZP et al. Utrecht interstitial applicator shifts and DVH parameter changes in 3D CT-based HDR brachytherapy of cervical cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16: 3945-3949.

29 

Pellizzon ACA. Pain relief procedures before high-dose-rate brachytherapy for non-surgical treatment of cervix cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10: 567-569.

30 

Chen J, Zhang N, Liu Y et al. Analysis of applicator insertion related acute side effects for cervical cancer treated with brachytherapy. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 677052.

31 

Wakatsuki M, Ohno T, Yoshida D et al. Intracavitary combined with CT-guided interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced uterine cervical cancer: Introduction of the technique and a case presentation. J Radiat Res 2011; 52: 54-58.

32 

Fokdal L, Tanderup K, Nielsen SK et al. Image and laparoscopic guided interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced primary or recurrent gynaecological cancer using the adaptive GEC ESTRO target concept. Radiother Oncol 2011; 100: 473-479.

33 

Murofushi K, Yoshioka Y, Sumi M et al. Outcomes analysis of pre-brachytherapy MRI in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020; 30: 473-479.

34 

Wang F, Tang Q, Lv G et al. Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer brachytherapy: A systematic review. Brachytherapy 2017; 16: 353-365.

35 

Mahantshetty U, Naga CP, Khadanga CR et al. A prospective comparison of computed tomography with transrectal ultrasonography assistance and magnetic resonance imaging-based target-volume definition during image guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102: 1448-1456.

36 

Swamidas J, Jain J, Nesvacil N et al. Dosimetric impact of target definition in brachytherapy for cervical cancer–computed tomography and trans rectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2022; 21: 126-133.

37 

Viswanathan AN, Erickson B, Gaffney DK et al. Comparison and consensus guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for CT-and MR-based brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 90: 320-328.

38 

Ohno T, Wakatsuki M, Toita T et al. Recommendations for high-risk clinical target volume definition with computed tomography for three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer patients. J Radiat Res 2017; 58: 341-350.

39 

Mahantshetty U, Poetter R, Beriwal S et al. IBS-GEC ESTRO-ABS recommendations for CT based contouring in image guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2021; 160: 273-284.

Copyright: © 2023 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.