To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study is a dosimetric and acute toxicity comparison of endometrial cancer patients treated with either Axxent (Xoft, Inc., San José, CA, USA) electronic and interstitial brachytherapy versus interstitial high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRBT).
Materials and Methods
Between 2015 and 2017, 94 patients with postoperative endometrial cancer were treated in our centre with the Axxent electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system. The V150 and V200 are evaluated prospectively for each plan. The mean age of patients was 65.9 years (age range 33–84 years), with different tumour staging. Of the 94 patients, 37 received exclusive adjuvant brachytherapy (25 Gy in five sessions); the remaining patients received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with a regimen of 23 sessions of 2 Gy each to the entire pelvis, followed by eBT (15 Gy in three sessions). Additionally, the absorbed doses received by the organs at risk (OAR), urinary bladder, rectum and sigmoid colon were compared with HDRBT plans, evaluating D2cc, V50% and V35%. Median follow-up was done for each of the 94 patients to assess the toxicity of the treatment: vaginal mucosa toxicity, rectal and urinary toxicity; and results are presented for acute toxicity, toxicity at 1 month after the end of treatment and follow-up after 12 months for a portion of patients according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity criteria.
The doses in OAR for eBT plans were lower than that for HDRBT plans, both Ir-192 and Co-60 plans, whose doses were similar. The dose in bladder with eBT was 63.8% of the prescribed dose for D2cc versus 70.1% for HDRBT Ir-192, for V50% was 7.2% versus 12.7% and for V35% was 15.2% versus 28.2%. In rectum the D2cc was 61.2% versus 68.4%, for V50% was 7.9% versus 14.3% and for V35% was 16.7% versus 32%. Results demonstrated lower doses to OAR in all eBT plans. Acute toxicity in eBT was very low in cases of mucositis, with only one case of toxicity greater than grade 1, rectal toxicity and urinary toxicity; results at 1 month are equally good, toxicity symptoms disappeared and no relapses have occurred to date.
The results of treatment with the Axxent eBT unit for 94 patients are very good, as no recurrence has been observed and the toxicity of the treatment is very low. The increase in V150 and V200 has not produced an increase in vaginal mucosa toxicity, and the doses in the OAR are lower than in the plans implemented for HDRBT with Ir-192 or Co-60. eBT is a good alternative to treat endometrial cancer in centres without conventional HDR availability. To date, there are limited published studies reporting on outcomes from patients treated with eBT.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.