4.2 Article

American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for soft tissue sarcoma brachytherapy

Journal

BRACHYTHERAPY
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 466-489

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2017.02.004

Keywords

Soft tissue sarcoma; Brachytherapy; Retroperitoneal sarcoma; Radiation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy represents an essential treatment option in the management of soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Brachytherapy represents an important subset of radiation therapy techniques used for STS, with evolving indications and applications. Therefore, the purpose of this guideline was to update clinicians regarding the data surrounding brachytherapy (BT) and provide recommendations for the utilization of BT in patients with STS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in STS, and STS BT in particular, created an updated guideline for the use of BT in STS based on a literature review and clinical experience. RESULTS: Guidelines are presented with respect to dose and fractionation and technical features to improve outcomes and potentially reduce the risk of toxicity. Brachytherapy as monotherapy can be considered in low-risk cases or in situations where re-irradiation is being considered. Brachytherapy boost can be considered in cases at higher risk of recurrence or where BT alone cannot adequately cover the target volume. To limit wound complications, the start of BT delivery should be delayed until final wound closure, or if after immediate reconstruction, started after postoperative Day 5. CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines have been created to provide clinicians with a review of the data supporting BT in the management of STS as well as providing indications and technique guidelines to ensure optimal patient selection and clinical outcomes. (C) 2017 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available