Purpose
The purpose of this study was to develop a radiation therapy (RT) contouring atlas and recommendations for women with postoperative and locally advanced vulvar carcinoma.
Methods and Materials
An international committee of 35 expert gynecologic radiation oncologists completed a survey of the treatment of vulvar carcinoma. An initial set of recommendations for contouring was discussed and generated by consensus. Two cases, 1 locally advanced and 1 postoperative, were contoured by 14 physicians. Contours were compared and analyzed using an expectation-maximization algorithm for simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE), and a 95% confidence interval contour was developed. The level of agreement among contours was assessed using a kappa statistic. STAPLE contours underwent full committee editing to generate the final atlas consensus contours.
Results
Analysis of the 14 contours showed substantial agreement, with kappa statistics of 0.69 and 0.64 for cases 1 and 2, respectively. There was high specificity for both cases (≥99%) and only moderate sensitivity of 71.3% and 64.9% for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Expert review and discussion generated consensus recommendations for contouring target volumes and treatment for postoperative and locally advanced vulvar cancer.
Conclusions
These consensus recommendations for contouring and treatment of vulvar cancer identified areas of complexity and controversy. Given the lack of clinical research evidence in vulvar cancer radiation therapy, the committee advocates a conservative and consistent approach using standardized recommendations.
PurposeTo compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) versus low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for localized prostate cancer in a multi-institutional phase 2 randomized trial.Methods and MaterialsMen with favorable-risk prostate cancer were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB to 144 Gy or single-fraction Iridium-192 HDRB to 19 Gy. HRQOL and urinary toxicity were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 scoring and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Independent samples t test and mixed effects modeling were performed for continuous variables. Time to IPSS resolution, defined as return to its baseline score ±5 points, was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimator curves with the log-rank test. A multiple-comparison adjusted P value of ≤.05 was considered significant.ResultsLDRB and HDRB were performed in 15 and 16 patients, respectively, for a total of 31 patients. At 3 months, patients treated with LDRB had a higher IPSS score (mean, 15.5 vs 6.0, respectively; P = .003) and lower EPIC urinary irritative score (mean, 69.2 vs 85.3, respectively; P = .037) compared with those who received HDRB. On repeated measures at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, the IPSS (P = .003) and EPIC urinary irritative scores (P = .019) were significantly better in the HDR arm, translating into a lower urinary toxicity profile. There were no significant differences in the EPIC urinary incontinence, sexual, or bowel habit scores between the 2 groups at any measured time point. Time to IPSS resolution was significantly shorter in the HDRB group (mean, 2.0 months) compared with the LDRB group (mean, 6.0 months; P = .028).ConclusionsHDRB monotherapy is a promising modality associated with a lower urinary toxicity profile and higher HRQOL in the first 12 months compared with LDRB.
In both univariate and multivariate analysis, patients with both a larger VAT volume and density had a better biochemical outcome. The interaction between prostate cancer aggressiveness and visceral fat volume and density needs to be further evaluated to provide a better understanding of this disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.