Interventional radiotherapy, also known as brachytherapy, is the use of sealed radioactive sources that directly deliver radiation to the tumor or tumor bed. Its unique dose distribution profile allows for high conformality, making it a very useful modality in the treatment of cancers in the head and neck, where different organs and substructures that serve various but related functions are situated close to each other. In recent years, we have seen several important technological breakthroughs in the field, especially regarding its application in head and neck cancers. These include advances in treatment delivery, dosimetry planning , image guidance , and catheter positioning techniques . These innovations, which often require interdisciplinary interventions, have resulted in enhanced treatment accuracy, and therefore, major clinical advantages in terms of increased local control and decreased toxicity, as well as economic benefits. In order to highlight the differences from old brachytherapy techniques, a more appropriate terminology should perhaps be adopted, to signify these advancements that resulted in new opportunities, approaches and better outcomes – interventional radiotherapy (IRT). Such a change in terminology will not only allow recognition of these advances, but also a meaningful distinction from obsolete techniques and suboptimal outcomes that are associated with traditional brachytherapy. This is very important in increasing awareness among professionals outside the field of radiation oncology. We briefly review these recent advances, the current indications, and future directions for IRT in head-and-neck cancers.
Brachytherapy

PURPOSE

Wilms tumor (WT) management has evolved into a multimodality paradigm that includes radiotherapy (RT), usually as an adjuvant or consolidative modality. Protocols are refined to maximize cure and compliance while minimizing acute toxicity and long-term effects. RT technique and timing are two factors that could improve these outcomes. We reviewed the evidence on survival and toxicity outcomes among WT patients with conventional versus advanced RT techniques and early versus delayed RT to inform a Department of Health (DOH) commissioned guideline.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EuropePMC, EBSCOHost, HERDIN, systematic review and clinical trial registries and official websites of scientific societies for relevant publications and grey literature. Eligibility screening, risk-of-bias assessment and data extraction were performed using a single-reviewer approach. Given the study and data heterogeneity, only a qualitative synthesis was performed. Certainty of evidence assessment was done using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We screened 314 studies and included seven in the review, including a phase 1/2 trial and six retrospective studies, all from first-world countries (US, France, Netherlands), except one from a newly industrialized country (Brazil). The certainty of evidence on the survival and toxicity outcomes with advanced RT techniques was very low. Moderate-certainty evidence supports that giving RT >14 days after surgery leads to increased mortality.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence does not support the routine use of advanced RT techniques; proper contextualization is necessary. Tertiary centers managing WT should strive to administer RT within 14 days after surgery whenever possible.

Wilms Tumor ; Nephroblastoma ; Radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-modulated ; Survival ; Toxicity

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global public health emergency. High levels of fear and limited access to cancer treatment may jeopardize the delivery of optimal oncologic care, potentially influencing treatment outcomes. This study aimed to identify patients’ and their caregivers’ perception of safety and accessibility of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of patients and caregivers at the Benavides Cancer Institute, University of Santo Tomas Hospital was performed from August to October 2020 using a 20-item investigator-developed questionnaire. Results: A total of 207 participants answered the survey. Frequency of hospital visits varied from none to more than ten times in the previous month; but having multiple postponements were uncommon. Eighty-two percent, 77%, 62%, and 55% of participants reported being afraid of contracting COVID-19 from other patients, hospital surroundings, hospital staff, and doctors, respectively. Twenty-six percent and 12% had difficulty finding transportation and passing through checkpoints, respectively. Twenty-eight percent strongly expressed financial limitations in prioritizing cancer care. Participants were amenable to the use of telemedicine and stringent protocols to reduce in-hospital transmission risk, but had some reluctance to spend out of their pockets for screening tests. Conclusion The perceived safety of cancer care was influenced by fears of contracting COVID-19; and accessibility was influenced by limited transportation and financial constraints. Despite these, multiple postponements and cancelled hospital visits were uncommon. Institutional approaches targeting these concerns will be crucial to ensure safe and timely delivery of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and further mitigate its impact on oncologic outcomes.
COVID-19 ; Pandemics ; Safety

We review the evolution of Brachytherapy to interventional radiotherapy and its current and potential roles in HNC management, and the requirements and challenges towards its effective and sustainable implementation in SEA.
Brachytherapy ; Radiotherapy