Spinal SBRT Treatment

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) has proven itself in the University setting and is now moving full speed into the community hospital and free standing centers. It has become apparent that with the right team effort a successful SBRT program can become easily implemented. Two key issues have been identified that hinder the success of implementing a SBRT program. The first issue is training and this includes training on both the linac and the SBRT immobilization device, and the second is thorough and complete documentation of the process. The traditional Lung, Liver, and Spine protocols have been well established and research in other areas such as prostate are ongoing. As outlined in the article, the benefit of hypo-fractionated treatment is very relevant to the patient’s quality of life during the treatment process.

Click here to read the full article.

Bionix Radiation Therapy Introduces Embrace®

Bionix Radiation Therapy introduces Embrace; A Premium Thermoplastic
Material Made in the USA.

Toledo, OH; June 6, 2013-Embrace Thermoplastic is a premium low-melt material used to create customizable immobilization for patients receiving radiation therapy treatments of the head and neck. Embrace Thermoplastic products include Standard U-Frames, Versaboard frames, S-Type frames, and Thermoplastic sheets. All Embrace Thermoplastic products are made in the USA.

Embrace Thermoplastic features minimal tackiness and shrinkage, and encompasses an even hole distribution pattern after molding which helps increase overall rigidity. Embrace provides a smooth comfort edge which ensures maximum patient comfort along the neck line.

Click here to read the full press release.

Prostate Cancer Treatment

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers among men in the United States. It was also one of the leading causes of cancer deaths among men of all races.  Working in the Radiation Therapy industry it would be hard to ignore the serious ramifications that prostate cancer has had on many men all over the world.

One of the treatment options is a Radical Prostatectomy. As this article outlines, it has become increasingly important to discuss with your patient prior to his operation that there may be several things discovered during and after the procedure. These discoveries may dictate that a course of Radiation Therapy may be needed after the operation.  Radiation Therapy can and will reduce the chance of a PSA reoccurrence. In addition, the patient should be informed of the possible short and long term complications from both the surgery and postoperative Radiation Therapy.

Click here to read the full article.

Prone Breast Cancer Treatment

As a result of greater awareness and the importance of early detection reaching an all time high, breast cancer is being detected in younger women and at an earlier stage resulting in better outcomes and increasing life expectancy. However, with the increased life expectancy come future complications from radiation exposure to the heart.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that rates of major coronary events increased with the dose of radiation received by the heart. The increase started within the first 5 years post treatment and continued into the third decade.

Prone Breast Treatment allows patients to receive Radiation Therapy with a lower radiation dose to their heart. By suspending the breast, the tumor is separated from the chest wall allowing it to receive the proper dose of radiation and sparing surrounding tissue and the heart from excess radiation.

Click here to read full article

Biochemical Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, or Interstitial Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

ll patients managed with definitive RT were treated using at least 10-MV photons and a conformal shaped 4-field technique. Those patients with AJCC clinical stage T1c, T2a disease who also had a PSA level of 10 ng/mL or less and biopsy Gleason score of 2 to 6 were treated to the prostate only with a 1.5-cm margin. The median prescription dose was 66 Gy (66-70 Gy) and was delivered using 2-Gy fractions. All other patients with clinically localized disease received a median prescription dose of 45 Gy (45-50.4 Gy) in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles plus a 1.5-cm margin. This was followed by treatment to the prostate alone using a shrinking field technique with a 1.5-cm margin to a median prescription dose of 22 Gy (18-22 Gy) in 1.8- to 2.0-Gy fractions. A 95% normalization was used.

Implant therapy was performed using palladium 103103 Pd) seeds, a perineal template-guided, peripheral-loading technique, and a Bruel & Kjaer 8551 transrectal ultrasound unit (Naerum, Denmark). The minimum peripheral dose to the prostatic capsule was 115 Gy. A transrectal ultrasound probe was used to image the prostate at 5-mm intervals preoperatively to ascertain the optimal number and location of seeds needed to deliver the minimum peripheral dose to the entire prostate gland volume. Individual seed strength ranged from 58 to 61 MBq. The total amount implanted ranged from 1306 to 7189 MBq. Postimplant dosimetry was performed on all patients based on films obtained at 4 weeks after the implant. For the first 143 patients this consisted of orthogonal films, and for the latter 75 patients, computed tomography was used. Of the 218 patients who received implant therapy, 152 (70%) received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for a median of 3 months (2-10 months). Hormonal therapy consisted of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist that was preceded by the use of a nonsteroidal antiandrogen for 7 to 10 days. Ninety-six (63%) of 152 patients received 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. The remaining 2 (1.33%), 15 (10%), 14 (9%), 20 (13%), 1 (1%), 2 (1.33%), and 2 (1.33%) received 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 10 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy, respectively.