OBJECTIVE: To present the 7-year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) and image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS).
METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, 104 patients were treated with APBI given by means of 3D-CRT using 3-5 non-coplanar, isocentric wedged fields, or IG-IMRT using kV-CBCT. The total dose of APBI was 36.9 Gy (9 × 4.1 Gy) using twice-a-day fractionation. Survival results, side effects and cosmetic results were assessed.
RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 90 months three (2.9%) local recurrences, one (0.9%) regional recurrence and two (1.9%) distant metastases were observed. The 7-year local (LRFS), recurrence free survival was 98.9%. The 7-year disease-free (DFS), metastases free (MFS) and overall survival (OS) was 94.8%, 97.9% and 94.8%, respectively. Late side effects included G1 skin toxicity in 15 (14.4%), G1, G2, and G3 fibrosis in 26 (25%), 3 (2.9%) and 1 (0.9%) patients respectively. Asymptomatic (G1) fat necrosis occurred in 10 (9.6%) patients. No ≥ G2 or higher late side effects occurred with IMRT. The rate of excellent/good and fair/poor cosmetic results was 93.2% and 6.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: 7-year results of APBI with 3D-CRT and IG-IMRT are encouraging. Toxicity profile and local tumor control are comparable to other series using multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy. Therefore, these external beam APBI techniques are valid alternatives to whole breast irradiation and brachytherapy based APBI.

BACKGROUND: The newer cancer treatment technologies hold the potential of providing improved health outcomes at an additional cost. So it becomes obligatory to assess the costs and benefits of a new technology, before defining its clinical value. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as compared to 2-dimensional radiotherapy (2-DRT) and 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for treating head and neck cancers (HNC) in India. The cost-effectiveness of 3-DCRT as compared to 2-DRT was also estimated.
METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was designed. Using a disaggregated societal perspective, lifetime study horizon and 3 percent discount rate, future costs and health outcomes were compared for a cohort of 1000 patients treated with any of the three radiation techniques. Data on health system cost, out of pocket expenditure, and quality of life was assessed through primary data collected from a large tertiary care public sector hospital in India. Data on xerostomia rates following each of the radiation techniques was extracted from the existing randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS: IMRT incurs an incremental cost of $7,072 (2,932-13,258) and $5,164 (463-10,954) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to 2-DRT and 3D-CRT, respectively. Further, 3D-CRT as compared to 2-DRT requires an incremental cost of $8,946 (1,996-19,313) per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Both IMRT and 3D-CRT are not cost-effective at 1 times GDP per capita for treating HNC in India. The costs and benefits of using IMRT for other potential indications (e.g. prostate, lung) require to be assessed before considering its introduction in India.

We report our institution\'s treatment techniques, disease outcomes, and complication rates after radiotherapy for the management of anal canal carcinoma with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt) and concurrent chemotherapy relative to prior cases managed with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-crt).
In a retrospective review of the medical records of 21 patients diagnosed with biopsy-proven stage i (23%), stage ii (27%), or stage iii (50%) squamous-cell carcinoma of the anal canal treated with curative chemotherapy and imrt between July 2009 and December 2014, patient outcomes were determined. Results for patients treated with 3D-crt by the same group were previously reported. The median initial radiation dose to the pelvic and inguinal nodes at risk was 45 Gy (range: 36-50.4 Gy), and the median total dose, including local anal canal primary tumour boost, was 59.4 Gy (range: 41.4-61.2 Gy). Patients received those doses over a median of 32 fractions (range: 23-34 fractions). Chemotherapy consisted of 2 cycles of concurrent fluorouracil-cisplatin (45%) or fluorouracil-mitomycin C (55%).
Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range: 0.38-6.4 years). The mean includes a patient who died of septic shock at 38 days. The 3-year rates of overall survival, metastasis-free survival, locoregional control, and colostomy-free survival were 95%, 100%, 100%, and 100% respectively. No patients underwent abdominoperitoneal resection after chemoradiotherapy or required diverting colostomy during or after treatment. Those outcomes compare favourably with the previously published series that used 3D-crt with or without brachytherapy in treating anal canal cancers. Of the 21 patients in the present series, 10 (48%) experienced acute grade 3, 4, or 5 toxicities related to treatment.
The recommended use of imrt with concurrent chemotherapy as an improvement over 3D-crt for management of anal canal carcinoma achieves a high probability of local control and colostomy-free survival without excessive risk for acute or late treatment-related toxicities.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials showing a clear survival benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) over 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in the treatment of lung cancer are lacking. This study compared the survival rates of patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who were treated with either 3D-CRT or IMRT and analyzed the prognostic factors for survival.
METHODS: From January 2008 to July 2015, 19 patients were treated with IMRT and 30 were treated with 3D-CRT in our institution. The choice between 3D-CRT and IMRT was determined by the physician based on tumor extent and general condition of the patients. The primary endpoint of this study was overall survival. The secondary endpoints were loco-regional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and the incidence of radiation-induced lung and esophageal toxicities.
RESULTS: The 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 94.7% and 77.1% in the IMRT group and 76.7% and 52.5% in the 3D-CRT group, respectively. The overall survival rates of the IMRT group were higher than those of the 3D-CRT group; however, these differences were not statistically significant (P=0.072). Gross tumor volume was significantly associated with the overall survival rate. The 1- and 2-year loco-regional recurrence-free survival rates were 63.2% and 51% in the IMRT group and 67.5% and 48.1% in the 3D-CRT group (P=0.897), respectively. The 1- and 2-year distant metastasis-free survival rates were 78.9% and 68.4% in the IMRT group and 62.6% and 40.9% in the 3D-CRT group (P=0.120), respectively. Chemotherapy and treatment interruption were significantly associated with distant metastasis-free survival.
CONCLUSIONS: IMRT showed comparable or better overall survival compared with 3D-CRT in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. To confirm the results of this study, further randomized prospective trials comparing IMRT with 3D-CRT are warranted.

Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction followed by postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is controversial because of the risk of compromised treatment plans and concerns regarding cosmetic outcomes. We evaluated the effects of immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with anatomical implants on the quality of PMRT delivered by 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). In this retrospective, single-institution study, patients who had undergone reconstruction with direct anatomic implant, performed by a single surgeon, received 3D-CRT between 2008 and 2013. For each patient, 2 plans (including or excluding internal mammary nodes [IMN]) were created and calculated. The primary end point was the dose distribution among reconstructed breasts, heart, lungs, and IMNs, and between right and left breasts. Of 29 consecutive patients, 11 received right-sided and 18 received left-sided PMRT to a total dose of 50Gy. For plans excluding IMN coverage, mean Dmean for right and left reconstructed breasts was 49.09Gy (98.2% of the prescribed dose) and 48.51Gy (97.0%), respectively. For plans including IMNs, mean Dmean was 49.15Gy (98.3%) for right and 48.46Gy (96.9%) for left reconstructed breasts; the mean IMN Dmean was 47.27Gy (right) and 47.89Gy (left). Heart Dmean was below 1.56Gy for all plans. Mean total lung volume receiving a dose of ≥ 20Gy was 13.80% to 19.47%. PMRT can be delivered effectively and safely by 3D-CRT after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with anatomical implants, even if patients require IMN treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear whether the superior normal organ-sparing effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3D) has a clinical impact on survival and cardiopulmonary mortality in patients with esophageal cancer (EC).
METHODS: The authors identified 2553 patients aged > 65 years from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare databases who had nonmetastatic EC diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 and were treated with either 3D (2240 patients) or IMRT (313 patients) within 6 months of diagnosis. The outcomes of the 2 cohorts were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment.
RESULTS: Except for marital status, year of diagnosis, and SEER region, both radiation cohorts were well balanced with regard to various patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, including the use of IMRT versus 3D in urban/metropolitan or rural areas. IMRT use increased from 2.6% in 2002 to 30% in 2009, whereas the use of 3D decreased from 97.4% in 2002 to 70% in 2009. On propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted multivariate analysis, IMRT was not found to be associated with EC-specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.80-1.10) or pulmonary mortality (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.37-3.36), but was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95), cardiac mortality (HR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.54), and other-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84). Similar associations were noted after adjusting for the type of chemotherapy, physician experience, and sensitivity analysis removing hybrid radiation claims.
CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, the use of IMRT was found to be significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and other-cause mortality in patients with EC.

The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric characteristics for hippocampal avoidance (HA) between the treatment plans based on fused CT and MRI imaging during whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) pertaining to: (1) 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), (2) dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy (dIMRT), and (3) RapidArc for patients with brain metastases. In our study, HA was defined as hippocampus beyond 5 mm, and planning target volume (PTV) was obtained subtracting HA volume from the volume of whole brain. There were 10 selected patients diagnosed with brain metastases receiving WBRT. These patients received plans for 3D-CRT (two fields), dIMRT (seven non-coplanar fields) and RapidArc (dual arc). The prescribed dose 30 Gy in 10 fractions was delivered to the whole-brain clinical target volume of patients. On the premise of meeting the clinical requirements, we compared target dose distribution, target coverage (TC), homogeneity index (HI), dose of organs at risk (OARs), monitor units (MU) and treatment time between the above three radiotherapy plans. V90 %, V95 % and TC of PTV for 3D-CRT plan were lowest of the three plans. V90 %, V95 % and HI of PTV in RapidArc plan were superior to the other two plans. TC of PTV in RapidArc plan was similar with dIMRT plan (P > 0.05). 3D-CRT was the optimal plan in the three plans for hippocampal protection. The median dose (Dmedian) and the maximum doses (Dmax) of hippocampus in 3D-CRT were 4.95, 10.87 Gy, which were lowest among the three planning approaches (P < 0.05). Dmedian and Dmax of hippocampus in dIMRT were 10.68, 14.11 Gy. Dmedian and Dmax of hippocampus in RapidArc were 10.30 gGy, 13.92 Gy. These parameters of the last two plans pertain to no significant difference (P > 0.05). When WBRT (30 Gy,10F) was equivalent to single dose 2 Gy,NTDmean of hippocampus in 3D-CRT, dIMRT and RapidArc were reduced to 3.60, 8.47, 8.20 Gy2, respectively. In addition, compared with dIMRT, MU of RapidArc was reduced and the treatment time was shortened by nearly 25 %. All three radiotherapy planning approaches in our study can meet the clinical requirements of HA. Although TC in 3D-CRT was lowest, hippocampus was protected best by this plan. So many radiation fields and the design of non-coplanar fields lead to the complication of dIMRT. TC and HI in RapidArc were superior to the other two plans with the precise of meeting the clinical requirements. The difference in protection for hippocampus between dIMRT and RapidArc was statistically significant. In addition, RapidArc can remarkably reduce MU and the treatment time.

The aim of this study was to summarize the outcomes and prognostic factors of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for esophageal carcinoma in our institute. Five hundred ninety-two patients received radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma (123 with 3D-CRT, 469 with IMRT) from January 2002 to March 2012. Three hundred sixty patients received radiotherapy alone and 232 patients received radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate endpoints, the log-rank test for univariate analysis, and multivariate analysis to identify independent prognostic factors. The median follow-up time was 22.6 months and the median dose was 60 Gy. The 1-year OS, PFS were 65.3%, 52.1%; the 3-year OS, PFS were 34.0%, 28.0%; and the 5-year OS, PFS were 23.5%, 19.6%. The median OS was 20 months (95% CI: 17.9-22.1 months) and the median PFS was 14 months (95% CI: 11.8-16.2 months). Univariate analysis indicated that sex, N-stage, M-stage, TNM stage, radiotherapy dose, weight loss before treatment, smoking, and drinking affected OS and PFS (p < 0.05 for all). T-stage affected OS (p = 0.042), but no significant influence on PFS (p = 0.101). The independent prognostic factors for better OS and PFS were early clinical TNM stage, high radiotherapy dose, and female sex (p < 0.05 for all). The results of esophageal carcinoma patients treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT with or without chemotherapy were promising. Clinical TNM stage, radiotherapy dose and sex were the independent prognostic factors for OS and PFS.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy.
METHODS: A systematic literature review using the PubMed®, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiotherapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed.
RESULTS: Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, the use of radiotherapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a re-staging evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should offer adjuvant radiotherapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (i.e., seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and should offer salvage radiotherapy to patients with prostatic specific antigen or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiotherapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiotherapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiotherapy should be made by the patient and the multi-disciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patient\'s history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. Please visit the ASTRO and AUA websites (http://www.redjournal.org/webfiles/images/journals/rob/RAP%20Guideline.pdf and http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/radiation-after-prostatectomy.cfm) to view this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.