DOCSLIB.ORG

(IORT) for Surgically Resected Brain Metastases: Outcome Analysis of an International Cooperative Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(IORT) for Surgically Resected Brain Metastases: Outcome Analysis of an International Cooperative Study Journal of Neuro-Oncology https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03309-6 CLINICAL STUDY Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for surgically resected brain metastases: outcome analysis of an international cooperative study Christopher P. Cifarelli1,3 · Stefanie Brehmer5 · John Austin Vargo2 · Joshua D. Hack3 · Klaus Henning Kahl4 · Gustavo Sarria‑Vargas6 · Frank A. Giordano6 Received: 19 August 2019 / Accepted: 5 October 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Background and objective The ideal delivery of radiation to the surgical cavity of brain metastases (BMs) remains the subject of debate. Risks of local failure (LF) and radiation necrosis (RN) have prompted a reappraisal of the timing and/or modality of this critical component of BM management. IORT delivered at the time of resection for BMs requiring surgery ofers the potential for improved local control (LC) aforded by the elimination of delay in time to initiation of radiation following surgery, decreased uncertainty in target delineation, and the possibility of dose escalation beyond that seen in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). This study provides a retrospective analysis with identifcation of potential predictors of outcomes. Methods Retrospective data was collected on patients treated with IORT immediately following surgical resection of BMs at three institutions according to the approval of individual IRBs. All patients were treated with 50kV portable linear accelerator using spherical applicators ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 cm. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS with endpoints of LC, DBC, incidence of RN, and overall survival (OS) and p < 0.05 considered signifcant. Results 54 patients were treated with IORT with a median age of 64 years. The most common primary diagnosis was non- small cell lung cancer (40%) with the most common location in the frontal lobe (38%). Median follow-up was 7.2 months and 1-year LC, DBC, and OS were 88%, 58%, and 73%, respectively. LMD was identifed in 2 patients (3%) and RN present in 4 patients (7%). The only predictor of LC was extent of resection with 1-year LC of 94% for GTR versus 62% for STR (p = 0.049). Conclusions IORT is a safe and efective means of delivering adjuvant radiation to the BM resection cavities with high rates of LC and low incidence of RN. Further studies are warranted directly comparing LC outcomes to SRS. Keywords Brain metastases · IORT · Intraoperative radiotherapy Introduction * Christopher P. Cifarelli [email protected] The use of adjuvant cranial radiation in patients requiring surgical resection for large brain metastases (BMs) remains 1 Department of Neurosurgery, West Virginia University, 1 a standard of care in most regions. Concerns related to the Medical Center Drive, Suite 4300, Morgantown, WV 26505, potential neurocognitive impact of whole brain radiation USA (WBRT) have resulted in the adoption of stereotactic radio- 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, surgery (SRS) approaches for use in treatment of metastatic USA lesions with or without surgical resection [4, 19]. Unfor- 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, West Virginia tunately, local control rates and the risks of leptomenin- University, Morgantown, WV, USA geal dissemination (LMD) in post-operative SRS treated 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical patients have failed to surpass rates achieved via post-oper- Center Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany ative WBRT [3]. Accordingly, proposals have hypothesized 5 Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, that the use of pre-operative SRS could decrease the risks Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany of LMD and local failure, while others have developed 6 Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 Journal of Neuro-Oncology dedicated SRS targeting guidelines which are still being dose reduction or abandonment of the IORT procedure validated [15, 20]. were reserved for cases in which the dose to critical organs Advances in radiation delivery techniques have led to a exceeded tolerances. BMs in the posterior fossa where re-emergence of intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) as a excluded from IORT treatment based on proximity to the viable mechanism for delivery of adjuvant treatment fol- brain stem. Follow-up imaging was performed at the dis- lowing tumor resection. The safety of IORT in the setting cretion of each institution’s practice, but generally included of glioblastoma has been established in conjunction with the gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) addition of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on the Stupp with perfusion imaging or positron emission tomography protocol and its efcacy is being evaluated in Phase III clini- (PET) for evaluation of radiation necrosis versus disease cal trial [6]. The published data regarding the use of IORT progression. Radiation necrosis was determined by the pres- for surgically resected BMs is limited to single institutional ence of contrast enhancement in the absence of increased studies [9, 24, 25]. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that perfusion or FDG uptake. Imaging was performed at a mini- the dose delivered locally to the resection cavity may be mum interval of every 3 months for the frst two years fol- escalated beyond that safely achievable with traditional SRS lowing IORT dependent on overall survival. Radiographic techniques, eliminating delay in time to initiation of radia- progression was determined based on RANO criteria, with tion treatment following surgery and avoiding the complex- the defnition of distant lesions being those not in continu- ity of target delineation in post-operative period [24]. ity with the post-operative resection cavity not previously The current study represents a retrospective analysis of identifed prior to IORT. multi-institutional data from centers in the United States and Statistical analyses were completed using IBM SPSS ver- Europe designed to provide insight into the ability of IORT sion 24 (Armonk, NY). Local failure (LF, defned as radio- to provide improvement in local control and reduced toxicity graphic progression at the site surgery and IORT), distant compared to historical data from SRS. brain control (DBC, defned as the absence lesions at other intracranial sites independent of surgery and IORT), and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan–Meier Methods method. Comparisons between groups were made using the log-rank method. Variables examined included: gender, age, Following institutional review board approval, an interna- primary histology, IORT dose, applicator size, lesion loca- tional multi-institutional data set was retrospectively formu- tion, eloquent versus non-eloquent location, and extent of lated between three participating centers. Data was shared in resection based on post-operative imaging. Continuous vari- de-identifed format using a comprehensive data set formu- ables were categorized around the median for comparisons. lated by all study investigators. Inclusion criteria included Due to a low number of events relative to the number of patients treated with IORT in conjunction with resection potential covariates, a valid multivariate model could not of brain metastases. The decision to proceed with surgical be generated. Variables potentially impacting the develop- resection was made by the primary treating neurosurgeon ment of radiation necrosis were compared using a two-sided and followed the guidelines of being a lesion not amenable Chi square test. A p < 0.05 was considered signifcant for all to SRS based on size or requiring surgical removal for mass analyses. efect and/or need for tissue diagnosis. Patients with primary brain tumors were excluded. Patients who underwent surgery and IORT followed by SRS for additional untreated lesions Results were included in the analysis. Although the goal of surgical treatment was to achieve a gross total resection, patients with Baseline patient and treatment characteristics for the post-operative radiographic evidence of a subtotal resection included 54 patients are detailed in Table 1. Briefy the was also included in the analysis. median age was 64 years, the most common histology was All patients were treated with IORT using the Intrabeam non-small cell lung cancer (40%, n = 23), the most common device (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Oberkochen, Germany) location was frontal lobe (38%, n = 22), and the majority with spherical applicators ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 cm in were in non-eloquent regions of the brain (72%, n = 42). diameter using a low-energy 50 kV X-ray portable linear Post-operative imaging verifed gross total resection was accelerator. IORT prescription doses were specified to achieved in 81% (n = 44). The median prescription dose for the spherical applicator surface and delivered in a single IORT was 30Gy to the applicator surface [interquartile range fraction following resection of the tumors. Intra-operative (IQR) 20–30Gy]. The median applicator size was 2.0 cm navigation was utilized to determine the distance to criti- (IQR 2.0–2.5), with a median treatment time of 16.8 min cal organs, i.e., brainstem and optic apparatus. Following (IQR 12.1–22.3). from the INTRAGO II trial guidelines for glioblastoma, The median follow-up was 7.2 months (IQR 3.4–15.3). 1 3 Journal of Neuro-Oncology Table 1 Baseline patient and treatment characteristics Baseline characteristics Median (inter- quartile range), or n (%) Gender Male 24 (44%) Female 30 (56%) Age 64 (54–68) Primary Histology Non-small cell lung 23 (43%) Breast 8 (15%) Melanoma 8 (15%) Renal 4 (7%) Gastrointestinal 4 (7%) Gynecologic 2 (4%) Other 5 (9%) Prescription Dose > 18 Gy 4 (7%) 18 Gy 7 (13%) 20 Gy 14 (26%) 30 Gy 29 (54%) IORT applicator size 1.5 cm 9 (17%) 2.0 cm 20 (37%) 2.5 cm 13 (24%) 3.0 cm 8 (15%) 3.5 cm 1 (2%) 4.0 cm 3 (6% IORT treatment time, minutes 16.8 (12.1–22.3) Brain Lobe Frontal 22 (41%) Parietal* 15 (28%) Occipital 6 (11%) Temporal 5 (9%) Posterior Fossa 6 (11%) Eloquent brain Eloquent 12 (22%) Non-eloquent 42 (78%) Extent of resection Gross total 44 (81%) Sub total 10 (19%) Median age of 64 years, diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer and Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • QUEST Provider Bulletin
    HMSA Provider Bulletin HMS A ’ S P L an fo R Q U E S T M embe R S Bulletin Q08-01 January 15, 2008 A MESSAGE FROM OUR appointments, ensuring the collection and forwarding of MEDICAL DIRECTOR necessary information, obtaining prior authorizations, educating the parents, and following up to ensure appointments are kept is Children with Special Health Care Needs guaranteed to be difficult and time consuming. Children with chronic illnesses are Other examples include children with diabetes, congenital heart challenging for pediatricians and other defects, seizure disorders, asthma, cancer (even if in remission), primary care providers entrusted with and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Also included are children their care. This is especially so for with multiple diagnoses, related or otherwise. those children whose management The Hawaii Department of Health has a service dedicated to requires the services of various assisting such children, their families and their caregivers. This medical specialists, allied health care is the Children with Special Health Needs Program, under the providers, organizations, and institutions. A child with Family Health Services Division. Children and youth under 21 a cleft palate, for example, may require the services of years of age residing in Hawaii are eligible if they have chronic an ENT surgeon, oral surgeon, dentist, audiologist, health conditions lasting (or expected to last) at least one year, speech therapist, DME provider (for hearing aids), for which specialized medical care is required. and the Department of Education. Locating these The Children with Special Health Needs Program can assist providers, making the necessary referrals, coordinating QUEST members who are having difficulty in coordinating or obtaining health care services, or who cannot obtain certain Happy New Year 2008 services through QUEST, with the following: IN THIS ISSUE: • Coordination of health care referrals and appointments.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Therapy – a Technicians Overview By: Stephanie Corsi, CVT
    Radiation Therapy – A technicians overview By: Stephanie Corsi, CVT Senior Radiation Oncology nurse, PennVet What is radiation therapy? Radiation therapy uses high-energy radiation or high energy particle (electrons) to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors. How does radiation therapy work? Radiation kills cancer cells by damaging their DNA. Cells that are rapidly dividing, like cancer cells, are more susceptible to radiation. The damage is by a high energy photon ejecting a high energy electron that then reacts with a water molecule to create charged particle, also called free radicals, within the cell that will damage the DNA. Most cells die what is called a “mitotic death”, meaning the cancer cells whose DNA is damaged beyond repair will stop dividing and die. Goal of Radiation: The purpose of radiation is to maximize the likelihood of tumor control while minimizing side-effects to the patient. Radiation may be used alone or in combination with surgery, chemotherapy, or both. “Curative” intent/ definitive therapy: This is given when the prognosis is good. The hope is that treatment will cure a cancer by eliminating a tumor and preventing recurrence. For tumors that are inherently sensitive, relatively small, and localized. Also used to treat residual cancer left behind after surgery, or before surgery to shrink a tumor. Examples: localized lymphomas, certain mast cell tumors, cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas Palliative intent: Not intended to cure, but rather relieve symptoms and reduce suffering. Given when prognosis is poor and quality of life is the primary focus. Used with bulky tumors. Examples: alleviate bone pain associated with osteosarcoma, a tumor pressing on the spine, tumors pressing on the esophagus interfering with breathing/eating, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cyberknife Stereotactic
    Que et al. BMC Cancer (2016) 16:451 DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2512-x RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of cyberknife stereotactic body radiation therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma Jenny Que1*, Hsing-Tao Kuo2, Li-Ching Lin1, Kuei-Li Lin1, Chia-Hui Lin1, Yu-Wei Lin1 and Ching-Chieh Yang1 Abstract Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been an emerging non-invasive treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) when curative treatments cannot be applied. In this study, we report our clinical experience with Cyberknife SBRT for unresectable HCC and evaluate the efficacy and clinical outcomes of this highly sophisticated treatment technology. Methods: Between 2008 and 2012, 115 patients with unresectable HCC treated with Cyberknife SBRT were retrospectively analyzed. Doses ranged from 26 Gy to 40 Gy were given in 3 to 5 fractions for 3 to 5 consecutive days. The cumulative probability of survival was calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed using Cox proportional hazard models. Results: The median follow-up was 15.5 months (range, 2-60 months). Based on Response Evaluation and Criteria inSolidTumors(RECIST).Wefoundthat48.7%ofpatients achieved a complete response and 40 % achieved a partial response. Median survival was 15 months (4-25 months). Overall survival (OS) at 1- and 2-years was 63. 5 %(54-71.5 %) and 41.3 % (31.6-50.6 %), respectively, while 1- and 2- years Progression-free Survival (PFS) rates were 42.8 %(33.0-52.2 %) and 38.8 % (29.0-48.4 %).
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation
    Continuing Medical Education societies regarding the definition of a Intracavitary balloon (Mammosite and Clinical evidence for partial- suitable candidate. Briefly, these include Contura) or strut-based brachytherapy breast irradiation early-stage, low-risk breast cancer: T1 or (SAVI) are another modality of breast The TARGIT, a phase III non- T2 invasive ductal breast carcinoma less brachytherapy. These devices come in The Department of Radiation Oncology offers free Continuing Medical Education credit to readers who read the inferiority trial, compared single-dose than 3 cm; estrogen positive; age greater different sizes, have single or multiple designated CME article and successfully complete a follow-up test online. You can complete the steps necessary targeted intraoperative radiotherapy than 60; and node negative12 (see Table lumens (strut-based or balloon-based to receive your AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ by visiting (TARGIT) versus fractionated external cme.utsouthwestern.edu/content/target-news- 1 for ASTRO consensus guidelines). catheters), and the entire device is placed beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast letter-accelerated-partial-breast-irradiation-apbi-options-and-new-horizons-em150 into the lumpectomy cavity. The lumens cancer.14 From 2000-2012, a total of Treatment options are then connected to an HDR unit, and 3,451 patients were randomized between Partial-breast radiation can be deliv- treatments are given twice daily for five APBI and whole-breast radiation in 33 ered via several different modalities, days to a dose of 34 Gy in 10 fractions. centers in 11 countries. Fifteen percent including interstitial brachytherapy, This treatment is invasive, and the device of women in the APBI arm were treated Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI): intracavitary brachytherapy (SAVI, stays within the lumpectomy cavity for the with additional EBRT due to adverse Contura, or Mammosite), intraopera- duration of the radiation treatments (five pathological features.
    [Show full text]
  • PRIOR AUTHORIZATION for RADIATION THERAPY For
    PRIOR AUTHORIZATION for RADIATION THERAPY For authorization, please complete this form, include patient chart notes to document information and FAX to the PEHP Prior Authorization Department at (801) 366‐7449 or mail to: 560 East 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102. If you have prior authorization or benefit questions, please call PEHP Customer Service at (801) 366‐7555 or toll free at (800) 753‐7490. Section I: PATIENT INFORMATION Name (Last, First MI): DOB: Age: PEHP ID #: Section II: PROVIDER INFORMATION Date Requested: Service Provider Name: Service Provider NPI #: Service Provider Tax ID #: Service Provider Address: Contact Person: Phone: Facsimile: ( ) ( ) Section III: PRE-AUTHORIZATION REQUEST Nature of Request: Please check. Requested Date (s) of Service: Place of Service: Please check. Auth Extension Pre‐Auth Retro Auth Urgent Ambulatory Surgical Center Inpatient Office Outpatient Facility Name: Facility NPI #: Facility Tax ID #: Facility Address: Facility Phone: Facility Facsimile: ( ) ( ) Primary Diagnosis/ICD‐10 Code: Secondary Diagnosis/ICD‐10 Code: A. Stage of Disease (T, N, M): B. Metastatic Site (s): N/A C. Karnofsky/ECOG Score: D. Indication for Radiation Therapy: Please check. Adjuvant Chemoradiation Consolidative Curative Neoadjuvant Palliative Other (please specify): ___________________________ E. Type of Radiation Modality/Technique Being Requested: Please check all that apply. 1. Accelerated 2. Accelerated‐Fractionated 3. Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) 4. Accelerated Whole Breast Irradiation/AWBI 5. Boost 6. Conformal/3D (3D‐CRT) 7. Conventional/2D (2DRT) 8. External Beam/EBRT 9. High Dose/HDR Brachytherapy 10. Hyperfractionated (or Superfractionated) 11. Hypofractionated 12. Image Guided/IGRT 13. Intensity Modulated/IMRT 14. Internal (Brachytherapy) 15. Interstitial Brachytherapy 16.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Radiation Therapy Safe and Innovative Options, Including the Cyberknife® System
    The future of radiation therapy Safe and innovative options, including the CyberKnife® System Could a nonsurgical treatment be right for you? When you’ve been diagnosed with a cancerous or noncancerous tumor, it’s natural to have questions and concerns about your treatment options. While surgery is sometimes the recommended treatment, in many cases, there are nonsurgical options. At CyberKnife® of Long Island, we offer noninvasive radiation therapy treatments that provide benefits over traditional surgery, including: – More comfort – Better accuracy – Fewer side effects – Quicker recovery times With two locations in western Suffolk, our services are also close to home. You have an experienced and Gain the advantage of trusted team dedicated to comprehensive, innovative care your treatment CyberKnife of Long Island is part of the At CyberKnife of Long Island, you can be Northwell Health Cancer Institute, one of confident that you’re being treated by the largest cancer programs in the New York experts in cancer care. metropolitan area. – For almost two decades (originally as We work with a wide range of cancer North Shore Radiation Therapy), we have specialists (nearly 200 members in over been using innovative technology to 25 different specialties). treat a wide variety of cancers, including prostate, lung, brain, skin, breast, head Patients have access to a robust research and and neck, spinal and rectal tumors. clinical trials program and an array of cancer support services — as well as a vast range of – We are the first in Suffolk County to primary care physicians, specialists, emergency use CyberKnife and have been treating rooms, imaging centers, laboratories, home patients with the technology since care and hospice.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyberknife Boost for Patients with Cervical Cancer Unable to Undergo Brachytherapy
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE published: 21 March 2012 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2012.00025 CyberKnife boost for patients with cervical cancer unable to undergo brachytherapy Jonathan Andrew Haas 1*, Matthew R. Witten2, Owen Clancey 2, Karen Episcopia2, Diane Accordino1 and Eva Chalas 3 1 Division of Radiation Oncology, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA 2 Division of Medical Physics, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA 3 Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Winthrop-University Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA Edited by: Standard radiation therapy for patients undergoing primary chemosensitized radiation for Brian Timothy Collins, Georgetown carcinomas of the cervix usually consists of external beam radiation followed by an intra- Hospital, USA cavitary brachytherapy boost. On occasion, the brachytherapy boost cannot be performed Reviewed by: Sean Collins, Georgetown University due to unfavorable anatomy or because of coexisting medical conditions. We examined the Hospital, USA safety and efficacy of using CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a boost Brian Timothy Collins, Georgetown to the cervix after external beam radiation in those patients unable to have brachytherapy Hospital, USA to give a more effective dose to the cervix than with conventional external beam radiation *Correspondence: alone. Six consecutive patients with anatomic or medical conditions precluding a tandem Jonathan Andrew Haas, Division of Radiation Oncology, and ovoid boost were treated with combined external beam radiation and CyberKnife boost Winthrop-University Hospital, 264 Old to the cervix. Five patients received 45 Gy to the pelvis with serial intensity-modulated radi- Country Road, Mineola, NY 11501, ation therapy boost to the uterus and cervix to a dose of 61.2Gy.These five patients received USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Prostate Cancer Treatment T CYBERKNIFE® INFORMATION QUICK FACTS
    CYBERKNIFE® INFORMATION GUIDE PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT t CYBERKNIFE® INFORMATION QUICK FACTS GUIDE • The FDA provided clearance for the CyberKnife System in 2001 PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT • The efficacy outcomes of the As a patient recently diagnosed with localized CyberKnife System are comparable to other prostate cancer treatment prostate cancer, it is important that you outcomes at 5 years1 familiarize yourself with several treatment options. By proactively researching the various • Over 5,000 men worldwide with approaches to treating your prostate cancer, prostate cancer have been treated 2 you’ll be better equipped to arrive at a decision with CyberKnife radiosurgery that is best suited for you. We encourage you to • Compared to surgery, the CyberKnife use this information guide to talk to your doctor System is a non-invasive procedure and discuss whether CyberKnife® radiosurgery that does not require hospitalization may be right for you. • The entire CyberKnife treatment can Having clinical data to review is key be completed within 4 – 5 sessions to your decision process. To date, several hundred men have been part • The CyberKnife System delivers of various CyberKnife clinical studies stereotactic radiation – a proven, where the outcome of their treatment 30+ year old technique – delivering PROSTATE was monitored and published in peer- high doses of radiation with reviewed medical journals. Results from some of exacting sub-millimeter accuracy those studies are referenced in this information by capitalizing on modern robotic guide. technology that spares healthy tissue What exactly is the CyberKnife System? • The CyberKnife System utilizes The CyberKnife System is a robot that delivers real-time image guidance to a unique form of Stereotactic Body Radiation accurately and continuously target Therapy (SBRT) also known as radiosurgery.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyberknife Stereotactic Treatment
    Cyberknife Stereotactic Treatment Eugene Lief, Ph.D. Christ Hospital Jersey City, New Jersey USA DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with any vendor and did not receive any financial support from any vendor. I am not recommending any particular product. CyberKnife® System CyberKnife from Accuray, Inc. Cyberknife Capabilities • As a robotic radiosurgery system, the CyberKnife enables to target tumors anywhere in the body with sub- millimeter accuracy. • Autonomous robotic ability to track, detect and correct for tumor and patient movement throughout the treatment • Dynamically delivering radiation in sync with real-time tumor motion • CyberKnife System provides a pain-free treatment alternative without the use of head and body frames. Tumor Sites • CyberKnife® System can treat tumors in: Brain, Spine, Lungs, Liver, Pancreas, Prostate • No head and body frames or other immobilization devices. • The number of CyberKnife extracranial treatments grew by over 185% between 2004 and 2006. Growing Popularity Autonomous Robotics • au•ton•o•mous ro•bot•ics [aw-ton-uh-muhs roh-bot-iks]–noun a: an electro-mechanical device capable of making intelligent decisions with limited or no human guidance b: a mechanized tool with the independent ability to respond and react to a dynamic environment based upon sensory input. • CyberKnife® System allows to track unpredictable tumor motion due to normal bodily functions, such as movement due to digestive functions around the prostate. It tells when the tumor moves even when the patient is stationary. The System shows [in real-time] tumor position from the beginning to the end of the treatment and automatically corrects for tumor movement.” Continuous Image Guidance Without the need for staff intervention or treatment interruption, the CyberKnife® System continuously works in concert with the treatment delivery system to instantly track, detect and correct – managing possible target movements throughout the treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Therapy Cancer
    TYPES OF RADIATION ABOUT OHC THERAPY OFFERED At OHC, the search for new treatments is relentless, THROUGH OHC’S the drive to provide superior care runs deep and the COMPREHENSIVE fight against cancer is personal. Our independent, PROGRAM physician-led practice is recognized for going beyond clinical excellence, providing unrestricted • 3-D conformal – Three-dimensional treatment personal support and genuine emotional caring • Cesium - 131 Brachytherapy in neighborhood locations throughout the region. • CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System OHC has been fighting cancer on the front lines • Gamma Knife Radiosurgery (Administered for more than three decades. At its heart, our exclusively through OHC) approach to cancer care is simple – we treat you like • HDR Brachytherapy – Internal Radiation family and surround you with everything you need so you can focus on what matters most: beating • IGRT – Image Guided Radiation Therapy cancer. • IMRT – Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy • SBRT – Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy • SRS – Stereotactic Radiosurgery • TheraSphere • Xofigo With a combined approach, you and your OHC radiation doctor will determine which type of RADIATION treatment is best for your diagnosis. To learn more about OHC’s radiation oncology services, please call 1-888-649-4800 or visit ohcare.com. THERAPY For more information, call toll free OHC radiation oncologists harness the power of 1-888-649-4800 or visit ohcare.com. advanced technology for targeted cancer care OHC. Start here. Research Nurses: Specially-trained registered nurses who work directly with a patient’s doctor to coordinate care and treatment if you are participating in a clinical trial . Medical Assistant: The person who takes your vital signs and completes an assessment before WHAT IS RADIATION you see the doctor THERAPY? .
    [Show full text]
  • Simultaneous Antiangiogenic Therapy and Singlefraction Radiosurgery In
    2010 THE AUTHORS; BJU INTERNATIONAL 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL Urological Oncology ANTI-ANGIOGENIC THERAPY AND RADIOSURGERY IN METASTATIC RCC STAEHLER ET AL. Simultaneous anti-angiogenic therapy and single-fraction radiosurgery in clinically relevant metastases from renal cell carcinoma BJUIBJU INTERNATIONAL Michael Staehler, Nicolas Haseke, Philipp Nuhn, Cordula Tüllmann, Alexander Karl, Michael Siebels, Christian G. Stief, Berndt Wowra* and Alexander Muacevic* Department of Urology, University of Munich, Klinikum Grosshadern, and *European CyberKnife Centre Munich, Max-Lebsche-Platz, Munich, Germany Accepted for publication 1 September 2010 RESULTS CONCLUSIONS Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 Median follow up was 14.7 months (range Simultaneous systemic anti-angiogenic 1–42 months). Forty-five patients were therapy and SRS for selected patients OBJECTIVES treated with sunitinb and 61 patients with with renal cell carcinoma who have spinal sorafenib. Two patients had asymptomatic and cerebral metastases is safe and To analyse the safety and efficacy of tumour haemorrhage after SRS. No skin effective. Single-fraction delivery allows simultaneous standard anti-angiogenic toxicity, neurotoxicity or myelopathy for efficacious integration of focal therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) occurred after SRS, and SRS did not alter radiation treatment into oncological in patients with spinal and cerebral the adverse effects of anti-angiogenic treatment concepts without additional metastases from renal cell carcinoma. therapy. Local tumour control 15 months toxicity. Further studies are needed to after SRS was 98% (95% confidence determine the limits of SRS for renal cell PATIENTS AND METHODS interval 89–99%). The median pain score carcinoma metastases outside the brain before SRS was 5 (range 1–8) and was and spine.
    [Show full text]
  • Is IORT Ready for Roll-Out?
    Is IORT ready for roll-out? Emanuela Esposito1, 2, 3, Bauke Anninga1, Ian Honey4, Gillian Ross5, Dick Rainsbury6, Siobhan Laws6, Sygriet Rinsma1 and Michael Douek1 1Research Oncology, Division of Cancer Studies, King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK 2Department of Breast Surgery, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori ‘Fondazione Giovanni Pascale’ – IRCCS, Naples 80131, Italy 3Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Breast Unit, University of Naples Federico II, Naples 80131, Italy 4Department of Medical Physics Floor 3, Henriette Raphael House, Guy’s and St Thomas Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK 5Clinical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, London SW3 6JJ, UK 6Oncoplastic Breast Unit, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Winchester SO22 5DG, UK Correspondence to: Emanuela Esposito and Michael Douek. Email: [email protected] and [email protected] Abstract Two large randomised controlled trials of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in breast-conserving surgery (TARGIT-A and ELIOT) have been published 14 years after their launch. Neither the TARGIT-A trial nor the ELIOT trial results have changed the current clinical practice for the use of IORT. The in-breast local recurrence rate (LRR) after IORT met the pre-specified non-inferiority margins in both trials and was 3.3% in TARGIT-A and 4.4% in the ELIOT trial. In both trials, the pre-specified estimates for local recurrence (LR) with external beam Review radiation therapy (EBRT) significantly overestimated actual LRR. In the TARGIT-A trial, LR with EBRT was estimated at the outset to be 6%, and in the ELIOT trial, it was estimated to be 3%.
    [Show full text]