高剂量率192铱后装机腔内加外照射治疗宫颈癌60例临床分析

目的:探讨高剂量率192铱后装腔内加体外照射治疗宫颈癌的疗效及副作用等。方法:2005年3月至2007年1月本院放疗中心共60例宫颈癌患者,采用8MV-X线直线加速器全盆照射,开始体外全盆腔照射,5次/周,2Gy/次,剂量25-40Gy;然后中间挡铅,4个野照射,5次/周,2Gy/次,宫旁剂量20-25Gy:同时腔内治疗,1次/周,6Gy/次,剂量为35-40Gy。腔内治疗采用ZL-HDR18铱高剂量率后装治疗机,全部病例均宫颈阴道同时进行。腔内治疗每周1次,A点剂量36-40GY/6-7F/6-7w,腔内治疗当日停体外照射,治疗时间56-77天。结果:CR+PR 100%,随访超过3年,随访率达95%,3年生存率Ⅱ期88.3%,Ⅲ期82.9%;早期放射性直肠反应发生率为12.4%,膀胱反应发生率5.2%;晚期放射性直肠炎发生率13.8%,膀胱炎3.8%。结论:高剂量率192铱后装机腔内加体外治疗宫颈癌的疗效满意,患者生存率较高,耐受好,并发症少。     

192 Ir腔内加体外放射治疗宫颈癌118例分析

目的：研究^192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗宫颈癌的疗效和放射反应。方法：118例宫颈癌患者采用^192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗，开始体外全盆腔照射，5次／周，2Gy/次，盆腔平面中心剂量26－40Gy,2.5-4.0周完成；然后中间挡铅，4个野照射，4次／周，2Gy/次，宫旁剂量20－25Gy；同时腔内治疗，1次／周，6Gy/次，剂量为36－42Gy。结果：全组3、5年生存率分别为83．1％和72．0％，Ⅱ，Ⅲ期5年生存率分别为80．6％和58．7％（P＞0．05）。早期放射性直肠反应发生率为13．6％，膀胱反应发生率为5．9％；晚期放射性直肠炎发生率为15．3％，膀胱炎为4．2％，直肠阴道瘘为0．9％。结论：^192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外照射治疗宫颈癌疗效肯定，应用方便，副作用少。     

外照射加192Ir腔内放射治疗宫颈癌112例

目的　研究192 Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗宫颈癌的疗效和放射反应。方法　 118例宫颈癌患者采用192 Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗 ,开始体外全盆腔照射 ,5次 /周 ,2Gy/次 ,盆腔平面中心剂量 2 6～ 40Gy。 2 5～ 4 0周完成 ;然后中间挡铅 ,4个野照射 ,4次 /周 ,2Gy/次 ,宫旁剂量 2 0～ 2 5Gy ;同时腔内治疗 ,1次 /周 ,6Gy/次 ,剂量为 3 6～ 42Gy。结果　全组 3、5年生存率分别为83 1%和 72 0 % ,Ⅱ、Ⅲ期 5年生存率分别为 80 6%和 5 8 7% (P >0 0 5 )。早期放射性直肠反应发生率为 13 4% ,膀胱反应发生率为6 2 % ;晚期放射性直肠炎发生率为 15 3 % ,膀胱炎为 4 2 % ,直肠阴道瘘为 0 9%。结论　192 Ir高剂量率腔内加体外照射治疗宫颈癌疗效肯定 ,应用方便 ,副作用少。     

宫颈癌96例内外放射治疗分析

目的　研究192 Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗宫颈癌的疗效和放射反应。方法　 96例宫颈癌患者采用192 Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗 ,开始体外全盆腔前后两野同时照射 ,4次 /周 ,2Gy/次 ,盆腔平面中心剂量 2 0Gy ,2 5周完成 ,然后中间挡铅 ,4野照射 ,4次 /周 ,2Gy/次 ,宫旁剂量 2 0～ 2 5Gy ;同时腔内照射 ,腔内 3次照射后 ,施源管仍不能置入宫腔者行插植照射 ,1次 /周 ,A点剂量5Gy/次 ,总剂量 3 0～ 3 5Gy。结果　全组 3、5年生存率分别为 79 6%和 69 2 %。早期放射性直肠反应发生率为 2 8 1% ,膀胱反应发生率为 3 1% ;晚期放射性直肠炎发生率为 12 5 % ,膀胱炎为 2 1% ,直肠阴道瘘为 1 0 %。结论　192 Ir高剂量率腔内加体外照射治疗宫颈癌疗效肯定 ,应用方便 ,副作用少。     

宫颈癌96例内外放射治疗分析

目的研究^192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗宫颈癌的疗效和放射反应。方法 96例宫颈癌患者采用^192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗，开始体外全盆腔前后两野同时照射，4次／周，2Gy／次，盆腔平面中心剂量20Gy，2．5周完成，然后中间挡铅，4野照射，4次／周，2Gy／次，宫旁剂量20～25Gy；同时腔内照射，腔内3次照射后，施源管仍不能置入宫腔者行插植照射，1次／周，A点剂量5Gy／次，总剂量30～35Gy。结果 全组3、5年生存率分别为79．6％和69．2％。早期放射性直肠反应发生率为28．1％，膀胱反应发生率为3．1％；晚期放射性直肠炎发生率为12．5％，膀胱炎为2．1％，直肠阴道瘘为1．0％。结论 ^192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外照射治疗宫颈癌疗效肯定，应用方便，副作用少。     

体外照射加192Ir腔内后装治疗子宫颈癌198例临床结果分析

目的研究192Ir高剂量率腔内后装配合体外放射治疗中晚期宫颈癌的疗效和放射反应.方法198例宫颈癌患者采用192Ir高剂量率腔内后装配合体外放射治疗,体外全盆腔常规分割照射36Gy～40Gy后中间挡铅,前后野照射,宫旁剂量20Gy～24Gy.自第二周行腔内后装治疗,1次/周,"A"点6 Gy/次,剂量24Gy～30 Gy/4次～5次.结果全组3年生存率为77.5%,其中Ⅱa期83.3%,Ⅱb期80.6%,Ⅲa期73.6%,Ⅲb期62%.结果显示影响预后生存率的因素是FIGO分期(P=0.000)、总剂量(P=0.027)、有无化疗(P=0.002).早期尿道刺激症发生率11.3%、放射性膀胱炎反应发生率10.2%,放射性直肠炎反应发生率22.4%.结论192Ir高剂量率腔内后装配合体外放射治疗中晚期宫颈癌疗效肯定,副作用少.     

铱~(192)高剂量率后装加外照射治疗宫颈癌105例分析

目的　研究铱192 高剂量率后装加外照射治疗宫颈癌的疗效 ,并发症等。方法　前瞻性治疗 ,全盆腔外照射DT 2 5～ 3 0Gy/3周后 ,再行腔内铱192 后装治疗和盆腔四野垂直照射 :腔内每周 1次 ,A点剂量每次 5～ 7Gy ,总剂量3 0～ 3 5Gy ,盆腔四野照射 ,宫旁剂量 15～ 2 0Gy/1.5～ 2周。 结果　CR PR 10 0 % ,3年生存率Ⅱ期 89.5 % ,Ⅲ期 80 .4% ,全组 83 .8%。结论　本疗法疗效可靠 ,放射性直肠炎、膀胱炎发生率与传统方法相似 ,放射性阴道损伤略高 ,放疗中、放疗后坚持阴道冲洗非常重要。     

体外照射加192Ir腔内后装治疗子宫颈癌198例临床结果分析

目的：研究^192Ir高剂量率腔内后装配合体外放射治疗中晚期宫颈癌的疗效和放射反应。方法：198例宫颈癌患者采用192Ir高剂量率腔内后装配合体外放射治疗，体外全盆腔常规分割照射36cy-40Gy后中间挡铅，前后野照射，宫旁剂量20Gy-24Gy。自第二周行腔内后装治疗，10z／周，“A”点：6cy／次，剂量24Gy-30Gy／4次-5次。结果：全组3年生存率为：77．5％，其中：Ⅱa期83．3％，IIb期80．6％，Ⅲa期73．6％，Ⅲb期62％。结果显示影响预后生存率的因素是FIGO分期（P=0．000）、总剂量（P=0．027）、有无化疗（P=0．002）。早期尿道刺激症发生率11．3％、放射性膀胱炎反应发生率10．2％，放射性直肠炎反应发生率22．4％。结论：^192Ir高剂量率腔内后装配合体外放射治疗中晚期宫颈癌疗效肯定，副作用少。     

中晚期宫颈癌放射治疗的临床分析

为探讨192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外照射放射治疗宫颈癌的疗效及其放射反应,对87例宫颈癌患者采用192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗,开始体外全盆腔前后两野照射,5次/周,2 Gy/次,15次/3周, 使宫旁剂量达30 Gy;3周后,中间挡铅,4野照射,5次/周,2 Gy/次,10次/2周,使宫旁剂量达20 Gy,外照射使宫旁即B点总剂量达50 Gy;外照射1周后,每周加1次内照射,1次/周,共7次,6～7 Gy/次,7次内照射使A点总剂量累计达42 Gy.全组总5年生存率59.8%(52/87),其中ⅡB期(24例)68.6%(24/35), Ⅲ期(28例)53.8%(28/52); 早期膀胱反应率为5.7%(5/87),直肠反应率为27.6%(24/87); 晚期放射性膀胱炎发生率4.6%(4/87),放射性直肠炎发生率为14.9%(13/87),宫腔积液的发生率为24.1%(21/87),阴道挛缩、粘连及部分闭锁发生率为21.8%(19/87),直肠阴道瘘发生率为2.3%(2/87).初步研究结果提示,192Ir高剂量率腔内加体外放射治疗宫颈癌疗效好,不良反应轻,是目前治疗中晚期宫颈癌的主要方法.     

体外加腔内照射治疗中晚期宫颈癌的远期疗效分析

目的：探讨体外加腔内照射治疗中晚期宫颈癌的临床疗效和不良反应。方法：选择我院1994年12月-1998年12月收治的117例Ⅱb、Ⅲ期宫颈癌患进行^60Co体外放射加^192Ir源高剂量率后装腔内治疗,全盆外照射46-50Gy,腔内放疗4-6Gy／次,1次／周,A点总量30-40Gy,疗程为6～7周。结果：全组117例患总的5年生存率为62．4％,其中Ⅱb期67．9％,Ⅲ期57．8％。盆腔内复发率42．1％,远处转移率57．9％。远期合并症放射性直肠炎6．8％,放射性膀胱炎5．1％,子宫积液0．9％,阴道狭窄35．9％。结论：体外加腔内照射治疗中晚期宫颈癌疗效肯定,其预后与诸多因素有关,如何降低远期并发症有待临床进一步研究。     

两种不同腔内后装施源器治疗宫颈癌的临床观察

目的：探讨高剂量率^192Ir腔内后装时不同施源器治疗宫颈癌的疗效及膀胱、肠道晚反应并发症的发生情况。方法：127例宫颈癌患者予全盆外照DT45～50Gy配合腔内后装治疗，依照后装治疗时不同施源器分为固定Ⅲ管组62例，单宫腔管组65例。固定Ⅲ管组开始于全盆外照DT33Gy／18次，A点DT5～7Gy／次，1次／周，总量24～25Gy，6—8周内完成治疗。单官腔管组开始于外照全盆DT38Gy／20次，A点DT6～7Gy／次，1次／周，总量21—25Gy，7～8周内完成治疗。结果：放疗结束后固定Ⅲ管组与单宫腔管组完全缓解病例分别为57例（91．94％）和58例（89．23％），5年生存率分别为66．13％（41／62）和61．50％（40／65），固定Ⅲ管组膀胱、肠道晚反应发生率分别为4．83％（3／62）和9．67％（6／62），明显低于单宫腔管组的10．76％（7／65）和21．53％（14／65）。结论：使用剂量曲线分布合理的固定Ⅲ管施源器行腔内放疗可以有效地治疗宫颈癌，并可明显减少膀胱、肠道晚反应并发症。     

160例Ⅱb期宫颈癌术前光子线+术中电子线照射的远期疗效分析

目的 分析官颈癌Ⅱb期患者应用术前外照射+192Ir腔内照射+手术及术中电子线照射的远期疗效.方法 对160例应用术前外照射+192Ir腔内照射+手术及术中电子线照射的宫颈癌Ⅱb期患者资料进行回顾分析.全部患者术前先全盆腔接受了20 Gy分10次外照射和192Ir近距离腔内放疗,1周后全盆腔接受了12 MeV电子线18～20 Gy照射.结果 随访率为98.1%.随访满5、10年患者分别为143、135例.5年和10年生存率、无瘤生存率、局部控制率分别为89.4%、86.3%、96.3%和84.4%、81.0%、95.0%.放射性直肠炎、膀胱炎发生率分别为5.0%、0.6%.放疗后肾孟积水、下肢水肿发生率分别为6.3%、1.3%.结论 宫颈癌Ⅱb期患者应用术前外照射+192Ir腔内照射+手术及术中电子线照射可提高患者生存率,且对肿瘤原发部位局部控制效果好,放疗副反应少.     

非根治剂量的体外照射配合腔内放疗加根治术治疗宫颈癌

目的 总结分析外照射配合腔内放疗加根治术治疗Ⅰb-Ⅲa期宫期癌的5年生存率和晚期并发症。方法 106例宫颈癌均行广泛性子宫切除和盆腔淋巴结清除术,其中78例行术前放疗（体外加腔内放疗,下同）,16例采用腔内放疗＋手术,12例术后放疗。外照射采用^60Co治疗机,给予合盆或盆腔四野照射,B点剂量术前放疗者为25－30Gy,术后放疗者为40－50Gy;腔内放疗采用^192Ir高剂量率后装机,A点剂量6－18Gy。结果 （1）5年生存率：Ⅰb-Ⅲa期术前放疗组为78.2%（61／78）,腔内＋手术组为68.8%（11／16）,术后放疗组为33.3%（4／12）。术前放疗组与术后放疗组相比,差异有显著性（P＜0.05）。术前放疗组中,Ⅱ期患者的5年生存率(77.6%,45／58）高于术后放疗组（1／4,P＜0.05）。（2）主要并发症：多为放射性直肠炎和膀胱炎。术前放疗组、腔内放疗＋手术组和术后放疗组的并发症发生率分别为34.6%(27/78）、31.3%（5／16）和33.3%(4/12),差异无显著性（P＞0.05）。结论 非根治量的体外照射配合腔内放疗加根治术治疗宫颈癌,可提高Ⅰb-Ⅲa期患者总的5年生存率和Ⅱ期患者的5年生存率,晚期并发症发生率差异无显著性。     

The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix

PURPOSE: This report presents guidelines for using high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in the management of patients with cervical cancer, taking into consideration the current availability of resources in most institutions. METHODS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) with expertise in HDR brachytherapy for cervical cancer performed a literature review, supplemented their clinical experience to formulate guidelines for HDR brachytherapy of cervical cancer. RESULTS: The ABS strongly recommends that definitive irradiation for cervical carcinoma must include brachytherapy as a component. Each institution should follow a consistent treatment policy when performing HDR brachytherapy, including complete documentation of treatment parameters and correlation with clinical outcome, such as pelvic control, survival, and complications. The goals are to treat Point A to at least a total low-dose-rate (LDR) equivalent of 80-85 Gy for early stage disease and 85-90 Gy for advanced stage. The pelvic sidewall dose recommendations are 50-55 Gy for early lesions and 55-65 Gy for advanced ones. The relative doses given by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) vs. brachytherapy depend upon the initial volume of disease, the ability to displace the bladder and rectum, the degree of tumor regression during pelvic irradiation, and institutional preference. As with LDR brachytherapy, every attempt should be made to keep the bladder and rectal doses below 80 Gy and 75 Gy LDR equivalent doses, respectively. Interstitial brachytherapy should be considered for patients with disease that cannot be optimally encompassed by intracavitary brachytherapy. While recognizing that many efficacious HDR fractionation schedules exist, some suggested dose and fractionation schemes for combining the EBRT with HDR brachytherapy for each stage of disease are presented. These recommendations are intended only as guidelines, and the suggested fractionation schemes have not been thoroughly tested. The responsibility for the medical decisions ultimately rests with the treating radiation oncologist. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are established for HDR brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Practitioners and cooperative groups are encouraged to use these guidelines to formulate their treatment and dose-reporting policies. These guidelines will be modified, as image-based treatment becomes more widely available.     

The trail of the development of high-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer in Japan

The differences in radiotherapeutic treatment systems for cervical cancer between the United States and Japan can be attributed either to the tolerance of high-risk organs, or dosimetry itself. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is the standard treatment for uterine cervix carcinoma in Japan. In addition, HDR Co-60 afterloading machines have been gradually replaced with Ir-192 micro-source afterloading machines during the past ten years. This implies that it has now become impossible to conduct a prospective comparative study of HDR versus low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy for cervical cancer in Japan. An examination of the history of HDR intracavitary radiotherapy for uterine cervix carcinoma in Japan led us to the conclusion that HDR intracavitary brachytherapy for the treatment of cervical cancer is as effective as LDR intracavitary brachytherapy in terms of both survival and complications. In Japan, studies on the former can be drawn from a long experience of more than 35 years.     

高剂量率~(192)Ir后装腔内加外照射治疗宫颈癌的远期疗效分析

目的　分析高剂量率192 Ir后装腔内加外照射治疗宫颈癌的远期疗效及并发症。方法　对12 8例Ⅱ、Ⅲ期放疗后宫颈癌进行了回顾分析。其中Ⅱ期 47例 ,Ⅲ期 81例。全盆腔外照射DT2 0Gy/ 10次 ,全盆中间挡铅 4cmDT2 0Gy～ 30Gy/ 10次～ 15次 ;后装A点剂量 48Gy～ 5 6Gy/ 6次～ 7次。 结果　 1、3、5年生存率分别为 91 6 1%、81 8%和 6 7 36 % ;Ⅱ、Ⅲ期 1、3、5年生存率无统计学差异 (P >0 .0 5 ) ;远期严重并发症的发生率 7 0 3% (9/ 12 8)。结论　高剂量率192 Ir后装腔内加外照射治疗宫颈癌疗效肯定 ,并发症少。盆腔局部复发仍是放疗失败的主要原因。     

高剂置率近距离放射治疗鼻咽癌的近期临床观察

本文报告48例采用外照射加腔内后装治疗鼻咽癌患者.其中计划性内、外照射29例,外照射未控补加腔内治疗9例,外照射放疗后鼻咽局部复发10例、腔内治疗使用~192Lr放射源,外照射总量5000~8500cGy.腔内治疗每次参考点剂量500~l000cG,总量1500~2500cGy.总鼻咽局部控制率91.7%.高于单纯外照射.为顽固性鼻咽癌的治疗提供了新方法.     

Present and future in brachytherapy--from the discovery of radium to the 21st century]

Brachytherapy can deliver high doses of radiation to a tumor with only low doses to the normal tissue. Brachytherapy can be classified as intracavitary, intraluminar and interstitial radiotherapy. It can be also divided into three groups according to dose rate: low (LDR), medium (MDR) and high (HDR) dose rates. In recent years, HDR remotely controlled afterloading systems are widespread in Japan. HDR brachytherapy has solved the problem of radiation exposure for medical staff, and patients need not be isolated in highly sealed rooms. Local control rates of T1 and T2 tongue cancer treated with LDR interstitial radiation using 226Ra and 192Ir were 80% and 67%. A phase III trial of HDR versus LDR interstitial brachytherapy for early tongue cancer revealed the same local control rates between the two groups. For uterine cervix cancer, the cause-specific survival rates of patients treated with HDR intracavitary brachytherapy were almost the same as those treated with LDR. HDR brachytherapy can be applied against recurrent tumors. Almost half of recurrent tumors can be controlled with HDR treatment. Brachytherapy is widely used for prostate cancer in the USA. LDR brachytherapy using 125I seeds is used for prostate cancer. In Japan, 125I seeds can not be used because of the regulation of radioisotopes, so we treat prostate cancer patients with HDR brachytherapy. The two-year biochemical NED rate is 83%. Brachytherapy has a long history of nearly 100 years. In recent years, the development of an HDR remotely controlled afterloading system and treatment planning system allows us to make a precise treatment plan and a uniform dose distribution. In the next century, HDR-brachytherapy will continue to play an important role in the field of radiotherapy.     

High versus low dose rate intracavitary irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy has been used as a standard modality in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the effects of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy on patients with adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix and to compare them with the effects of LDR brachytherapy. METHODS: From January 1971 to December 1992, 104 patients suffering from adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix were treated with radiation therapy in the Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University. LDR brachytherapy was carried out on 34 patients and HDR brachytherapy on 70 patients. In the LDR group, eight patients were in stage IB, six in IIA, 12 in IIB, three in IIIA and five in IIIB. External radiation therapy was delivered with 10 MV X-rays, 2 Gy fraction per day, total dose of whole pelvis 36-52 Gy (median 46 Gy). LDR radium intracavitary irradiation was performed with a Henschke applicator, 37-59 Gy targeted at point A (median 43 Gy). In the HDR group, there were 16 patients in stage IB, six in IIA, 32 in IIB and 16 in IIIB. The total whole pelvis dose of external radiation was 40-50 Gy (median 44 Gy), daily 1.8-2.0 Gy. HDR Co-60 intracavitary irradiation was performed with a remotely controlled after-loading system (RALS), 30-48 Gy (median 39 Gy) targeted at point A, three times per week, 3 Gy per fraction. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival rate in the LDR group was 72.9, 61.9 and 35.7% in stage I, II and III, respectively and the corresponding figures for HDR were 87.1, 58.3 and 43.8% (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the HDR group and the LDR group in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate from adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. There was a late complication rate of 12% in the LDR group and 27% in the HDR group. The incidence of late complications in stages II and III was higher in the HDR group than in the LDR group (31.6 vs 16.7% in stage II, 37.3% vs 12.5% in stage III, p > 0.05). No prognostic factors were evident in the comparison between the two groups. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in terms of 5-year survival rate in the patients with adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix between those treated with HDR and those treated with LDR brachytherapy. Even though late complication rates were higher in the HDR group, most of them were classified as grade I. This retrospective study suggests that HDR brachytherapy may be able to replace LDR brachytherapy in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix.