To report on skin tumor treatment with surface mould brachytherapy at our institution. Methods This was a retrospective review for all patients with skin tumors treated using Ir-192 high dose rate (HDR) surface mould brachytherapy from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2017 in British Columbia. We identified 65 lesions (59 patients). Median age at diagnosis was 83 (range = 45-97). The majority were basal cell (54%, n = 35) or squamous cell carcinomas (31%, n = 20). Most lesions were located in the head and neck region. The most commonly used RT dose was 40 Gy/10 fractions; all patients had individualized CT-based planning. Results The two-year overall survival (OS) was 77.6% and two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 71.5%. Most deaths were from unrelated causes. Response was assessed in clinic 2-4 months post-treatment. Our complete response (CR) rate was 96.8%, with partial response in two patients; two patients could not be assessed for response. We report a two-year local control (LC) rate of 84.9%, and local recurrence in five patients. The procedure was well tolerated, with no grade 3-5 acute or late toxicities. There was one case of grade 2 radionecrosis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v. 4.03). The 100% isodose line median depth was 0.5 cm, and median surface dose = 126.5%. The median V 90 = 92.3%. Conclusion Surface mould brachytherapy for skin tumors is a safe and effective modality, with excellent response rates. It is well-tolerated and a non-invasive option for elderly patients with comorbidities.

No abstract

Background: Adjuvant treatment in early ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC) is not yet standardized. The objective of this population-based study was to compare the outcome of patients with early OCCC treated with adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) and evaluate the association of adjuvant radiotherapy regimens (whole abdominal radiotherapy [WART] versus pelvic nodal radiotherapy [PRT]) with outcome. Patients and Methods: Chart review was conducted to identify patients with stage I and II OCCC with complete information on staging. Patients with stage IA, IB, or IC OCCC purely resulting from capsular rupture were excluded because the provincial protocol does not recommend adjuvant treatment. Results: Overall, 403 patients were identified and 343 received adjuvant treatment, of whom 255 had stage IC or II OCCC and 153 were eligible for final analysis. On Cox multivariable regression, receipt of chemoRT (n=90) was associated with an improvement in failure-free survival (FFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34–0.94) compared with chemotherapy alone (n=63). Use of chemoRT also resulted in 54% reduction in the cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.89). However, there was no significant difference in the HR for overall survival (OS) between the chemoRT (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.43–1.13) and chemotherapy group. Relative to chemotherapy + WART (chemo-WART), chemotherapy + PRT (chemo-PRT) was not associated with any significant difference in HR for FFS (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.40–4.44) or OS (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.37–3.46). Conclusions: Adjuvant chemoRT was associated with a lower risk of failure compared with chemotherapy alone. However, there was no difference in OS between the adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoRT regimens. Additionally, no significant difference in terms of FFS or OS was found between the chemo-WART and chemo-PRT groups.