TY - JOUR
T1 - Image Guided Cervical Brachytherapy
T2 - 2014 Survey of the American Brachytherapy Society
AU - Grover, Surbhi
AU - Harkenrider, Matthew M.
AU - Cho, Linda P.
AU - Erickson, Beth
AU - Small, Christina
AU - Small, William
AU - Viswanathan, Akila N.
N1 - Funding Information:
A.V. receives support from National Institutes of Health grant R21 167800 .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Purpose To provide an update of the 2007 American brachytherapy survey on image-based brachytherapy, which showed that in the setting of treatment planning for gynecologic brachytherapy, although computed tomography (CT) was often used for treatment planning, most brachytherapists used point A for dose specification. Methods and Materials A 45-question electronic survey on cervical cancer brachytherapy practice patterns was sent to all American Brachytherapy Society members and additional radiation oncologists and physicists based in the United States between January and September 2014. Responses from the 2007 survey and the present survey were compared using the χ2 test. Results There were 370 respondents. Of those, only respondents, not in training, who treat more than 1 cervical cancer patient per year and practice in the United States, were included in the analysis (219). For dose specification to the target (cervix and tumor), 95% always use CT, and 34% always use MRI. However, 46% use point A only for dose specification to the target. There was a lot of variation in parameters used for dose evaluation of target volume and normal tissues. Compared with the 2007 survey, use of MRI has increased from 2% to 34% (P<.0001) for dose specification to the target. Use of volume-based dose delineation to the target has increased from 14% to 52% (P<.0001). Conclusion Although use of image-based brachytherapy has increased in the United States since the 2007 survey, there is room for further growth, particularly with the use of MRI. This increase may be in part due to educational initiatives. However, there is still significant heterogeneity in brachytherapy practice in the United States, and future efforts should be geared toward standardizing treatment.
AB - Purpose To provide an update of the 2007 American brachytherapy survey on image-based brachytherapy, which showed that in the setting of treatment planning for gynecologic brachytherapy, although computed tomography (CT) was often used for treatment planning, most brachytherapists used point A for dose specification. Methods and Materials A 45-question electronic survey on cervical cancer brachytherapy practice patterns was sent to all American Brachytherapy Society members and additional radiation oncologists and physicists based in the United States between January and September 2014. Responses from the 2007 survey and the present survey were compared using the χ2 test. Results There were 370 respondents. Of those, only respondents, not in training, who treat more than 1 cervical cancer patient per year and practice in the United States, were included in the analysis (219). For dose specification to the target (cervix and tumor), 95% always use CT, and 34% always use MRI. However, 46% use point A only for dose specification to the target. There was a lot of variation in parameters used for dose evaluation of target volume and normal tissues. Compared with the 2007 survey, use of MRI has increased from 2% to 34% (P<.0001) for dose specification to the target. Use of volume-based dose delineation to the target has increased from 14% to 52% (P<.0001). Conclusion Although use of image-based brachytherapy has increased in the United States since the 2007 survey, there is room for further growth, particularly with the use of MRI. This increase may be in part due to educational initiatives. However, there is still significant heterogeneity in brachytherapy practice in the United States, and future efforts should be geared toward standardizing treatment.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963744163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84963744163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.024
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.024
M3 - Article
C2 - 26867888
AN - SCOPUS:84963744163
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 94
SP - 598
EP - 604
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 3
ER -