Advertisement

Clinical and Dosimetric Comparison of Interstitial Applications Using Martinez Universal Perineal Interstitial Template (MUPIT) and Syed–Neblett Template for Carcinoma Cervix

  • Anis BandyopadhyayEmail author
  • Poulami Basu
  • Kaushik Roy
  • Apurba Kabasi
  • Shyamal Kumar Sarkar
Original Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

MUPIT and Syed–Neblett Template are the two commonly used systems for interstitial brachytherapy for gynecological cancers in India. A retrospective study was done to compare and evaluate the outcome, dosimetric data and the toxicities of the two perineal template-based high dose rate brachytherapies in patients diagnosed of cervical cancer and vaginal carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

Between January 2010 and January 2013, 62 patients treated with interstitial transperineal brachytherapy using MUPIT and Syed–Neblett Template at a tertiary care center of Eastern India were included in the study. The median EBRT dose was 50 Gy; ISRT (interstitial brachytherapy) dose was 21 Gy. The dosimetric data and clinical outcome and the toxicity profile were obtained from our file archive and TPS archives. These were correlated with follow-up status regarding toxicity and locoregional recurrence and control.

Results

During the study period, 62 patients received ISRT of which 8 were of vault recurrence. Of these 62 patients, 37 were treated using Syed–Neblett and 25 using MUPIT. Median age was 45 years; ISRT dose was similar in both groups (21 Gy in 3 fractions once a week). The mean EQD2 to the 2 cc bladder and 2 cc rectum was 75.4 Gy and 72.21 Gy in the Syed cohort and 76.83 Gy and 75.38 Gy in the MUPIT cohort, respectively (p = 0.12 and 0.09). Acute toxicity was mostly grade 1 and 2 genitourinary (%) or grade 1 and 2 rectal (%). Most common late toxicity was gastrointestinal bleeding and dysuria: 16.22% and 8.35% in the Neblett arm and 18.18 and 9% in the MUPIT arm. With a median follow-up of 27 months, the local control rate was 53% in the Neblett arm and 67% in the MUPIT arm (p = .32).

Conclusion

Though there were differences between the dose volumes received by the OAR and the target, the local control rates and long-term normal tissue toxicity were found to be not significantly different between the two systems of transperineal brachytherapy for cervical cancers.

Keywords

Transperineal interstitial brachytherapy MUPIT Syed Neblett Carcinoma cervix 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aristizabal SA, Surwit EA, Hevezi JM, Heusinkveld RS. Treatment of advanced cancer of the cervix with transperineal interstitial irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983;9:1013–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martinez A, Cox RS, Edmunson GK. A multiple-site perineal applicator (MUPIT) for treatment of prostatic, anorectal, and gynaecological malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1984;10:297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Syed AMN, Puthawala AA, Neblett D. Transperineal interstitial-intracvitary “Syed-Neblett” applicator in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Endocurie Hypertherm Oncol. 1986;2:1–13.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambumani S, Anchineyan P, Narayanasamy N, et al. Treatment planning methods in high dose rate interstitial brachytherapy of carcinoma cervix: a dosimetric and radiobiological analysis. ISRN Oncol. 2014;2014:125020.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Withers H, Thames H, Peters L. A new isoeffect curve for change in dose per fraction. Radiother Oncol. 1983;1:187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aristizabal SA, Valencia A, Ocampo G. Interstitial parametrial irradiation in cancer of the cervix stage IIb-IIIb: an analysis of pelvic control and complications. Endocurie Hyperth Oncol. 1985;1:41–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nag S, Martinez-Monge R, Ellis R, Lewandowski G, Vacarello L, Boutselis JG, et al. The use of fluoroscopy to guide needle placement in interstitial gynecological brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40:415–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demanes DJ, Rodriguez RR, Bendre DD, Ewing TL. High dose rate transperineal interstitial brachytherapy for cervical cancer: high pelvic control and low complication rates. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahanshetty U, Srrivastva S, Kalyani N. Template-based high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in gynecologic cancers: a single institutional experience. Brachytherapy. 2014;13:337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chopra S, et al. Evaluation of quality indices during multifractionated pelvic interstitial brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2013;12(2):156–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta AK, Vicini FA, Frazier AJ, Barth-Jones DC, Edmundson GK, Mele E, et al. Iridium-192 transperineal interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced or recurrent gynecological malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:1055–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nandwani PK, Vyas RK, Neema JP, et al. India Retrospective analysis of role of interstitial brachytherapy using template (MUPIT) in locally advanced gynecological malignancies. J Cancer Res Ther. 2007;3:111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sukhla P, Chopra S, Engineer R, et al. Quality assurance of multifractionated pelvic interstitial bracytherapy for postoperative recurrences of cervical cancers: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(4):e618–21.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erickson B, Albano K, Gillin M. CT-guided interstitial implantation of gynaecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36:599–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee LJ, Damato AL, Viswanathan AN. Clinical outcomes of high-dose-rate interstitial gynecologic brachytherapy using real-time CT guidance. Brachytherapy. 2013;12:303–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beriwal S, Rwigema JC, Higgins E, et al. Three dimensional image based high-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy for vaginal cancer. Brachytherapy. 2012;11:176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amsbaugh MJ, Bhatt N, Hunter T, et al. Computed tomography planned interstitial brachytherapy for recurrent gynecologic cancer. Brachytherapy. 2015;14:600–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoverkort MAD, Steen-Banasik VD, Verhoef CG, et al. Image guided Interstitial brachytherapy for locally advanced Gynaecological cancer with a MUPIT applicator. Barchytherapy. 2016;15 (Suplement 1):S89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiotherapyMedical College KolkataKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of RadiotherapyMedical College KolkataKolkataIndia
  3. 3.Department of RadiotherapyMedical College KolkataKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations