Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2013 Jun 10;8(6):e65423. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065423

High Dose Rate versus Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Oral Cancer – A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Zhenxing Liu 1,#, Shengyun Huang 1,#, Dongsheng Zhang 1,*
Editor: Gayle E Woloschak2
PMCID: PMC3677879  PMID: 23762369

Abstract

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of high dose rate (HDR) and low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy in treating early-stage oral cancer.

Data Sources

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, restricted to English language up to June 1, 2012, was performed to identify potentially relevant studies.

Study Selection

Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled trials that compared HDR to LDR brachytherapy in treatment of early-stage oral cancer (stages I, II and III) were of interest.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two investigators independently extracted data from retrieved studies and controversies were solved by discussion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1. One RCT and five controlled trials (607 patients: 447 for LDR and 160 for HDR) met the inclusion criteria. The odds ratio showed no statistically significant difference between LDR group and HDR group in terms of local recurrence (OR = 1.12, CI 95% 0.62–2.01), overall mortality (OR = 1.01, CI 95% 0.61–1.66) and Grade 3/4 complications (OR = 0.86, CI 95% 0.52–1.42).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated that HDR brachytherapy was a comparable alternative to LDR brachytherapy in treatment of oral cancer. HDR brachytherapy might become a routine choice for early-stage oral cancer in the future.

Introduction

Oral cancer is posing an ever increasing threat to global health. The annual case number is estimated around 275,000, two-thirds of which occur in developing countries [1], [2]. The current four main treatment modalities for oral cancer are surgery alone, radiotherapy alone, surgery with radiotherapy, and chemotherapy with or without surgery and radiotherapy [3]. With the improvement of treatment modalities over decades, the quality of life comes to our attention.

Owing to its excellent local control rates, acceptable side effects, and high quality of life, brachytherapy has been demonstrated as a sole treatment modality or a supplementary method for oral cancer. It provides a high localized dose of radiation, with rapid fall-off and short overall treatment duration [4]. Low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy has been reported with a superior outcome in treatment of carcinoma of the lip, tongue, floor of mouth, oral mucosa, base of tongue, buccal mucosa, soft palate, etc. Nowadays, LDR brachytherapy is challenged by high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, as the latter shows advantages in avoiding radiation exposure to medical personnel and shortening the treatment period. As a result, HDR brachytherapy has become widely accepted in treating carcinoma, especially in gynecological cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer [5]. However, the efficacy and safety of HDR brachytherapy, compared with LDR brachytherapy, remains controversial.

Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HDR versus LDR brachytherapy in treatment of oral cancer in terms of local recurrence, overall mortality, and treatment complications.

Methods

Literature Search and Study Selection

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, restricted to English language up to June 1, 2012, was performed to identify potentially relevant studies. Analysis methods and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in a protocol. The literature search strategy is presented in Table 1, and relevant hits are 211 (for MEDLINE and EMBASE) and 114 (for Cochrane Library).

Table 1. Literature search strategies performed.

Search term entry
#1 cancer or carcinoma or SCC or CA or tumor or tumour or malignan* or neoplas* or HNSCC or OSCC
#2 ‘head and neck’ or ‘oral cavity’ or mouth or oral or intra-oral or gingiva* or lip* or tongue or palatal or palate or gum* or buccal
#3 #1 AND #2
#4 ‘brachytherapy’ or ‘brachytherapy implant’ or ‘brachytherapy device’ or ‘interstitial radiotherapy’ or ‘implant radiotherapy’ and (‘low dose rate’ or ‘low dose’ or low or LDR) and (‘high dose rate’ or ‘high dose’ or high or HDR)
#5 #3 AND #4
#6 outcome or ‘follow up’ or ‘local control rate’ or LCR or ‘local recurrence’ or ‘local failure’ or relapse or survi* or complication or ‘adverse reaction’ or ‘adverse effects’ or toxic or toxicity or necrosis or nucler or mucositis
#7 #5 AND #6
Open in a new tab

SCC: squamous cell carcinoma, CA: carcinoma, HNSCC: head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, OSCC: oral squamous cell carcinoma, HDR: high dose rate, LDR: low dose rate, LCR: local control rate.

The inclusion criteria for this review were: (a) randomized controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomized controlled trials; (b) trials recruiting tumors of the oral cavity, including tongue, buccal mucosa, palate, gingival, and cancers of the lip; (c) LDR brachytherapy and HDR brachytherapy were applied and compared in the therapy; (d) local control rate, overall survival and treatment complications were described as reference standard; (e) trials with a minimum follow-up of 18 months; (f) at least 25 patients were included. Two investigators (Z.X.L. and S.Y.H.) independently judged study eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Literature selection was present in the PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1) according to the PRISMA guidelines [6], [7].

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the meta-analysis.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Data Extraction

Two investigators (Z.X.L. and S.Y.H.) extracted data from retrieved studies independently and resolved controversies by discussion. Study characteristics that were collected included (a) first name, (b) year of publication, (c) the anatomical location of the tumor, (d) brief description of literature (number of patients, implant species, dosage of brachytherapy, local control rate, overall survival and treatment complications), (e) length of follow-up, and (f) quality of trials.

Statistical Analysis

The outcome data of local recurrence, overall mortality and treatment complications was summarized. OR and 95% CI (confidence intervals) were employed to evaluate each outcome. Heterogeneity across the trails was evaluated by I2 statistics, which describes the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance [8]. Odds ratio (OR) was calculated using fixed effect model or random effect model (Mantel-Haenszel method) [9] according to I2 values (low: 0–25%; moderate: 25%–50%; high: 50%–75%; extreme: 75%–100%) [10]. To ascertain the validity of included studies we conducted the meta-analysis according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [11], [12]. The potential publication bias was assessed using “funnel plot”. The GRADE approach was used to present the overall quality of evidence as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [11]. GRADEprofiler software (version 3.6) was used to prepare the ‘summary of finding’ table. All the analyses (including sensitivity analyses) were performed using RevMan 5.1.

Results

We included 6 trials in total, consisting of one RCT and five trials with control. Of those eligible trials, 607 patients treated with LDR (n = 447) or HDR (n = 160) were taken into account. Four studies compared LDR versus HDR brachytherapy alone, while two others combined adjuvant routine radiotherapy. The RCT showed a low risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias [11]. Five controlled trials presented the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) of 6–8. The retrieved studies are present in table 2 [13]–[18], and the levels of evidence were also described referring to Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine [19]. The study quality was also estimated following the GRADE system, and figure 2 shows the outcomes of ‘summary of finding’. It was moderate for local recurrence and mortality and low for Grade 3/4 complications.

Table 2. Characteristics of literatures investigating LDR vs. HDR for oral cancer.

Author Year Anatomy LOE LDR HDR
Pts Implants Dose(Gy) Pts Implants Dose(Gy)
Ghadjar13 2011 Lip 2b 70 192Ir 60 33 192Ir 36
Arrate14 2010 Lip 2b 100 192Ir 60–70 21 192Ir 45–50
Umeda15 2005 Tongue 2b 78 226Rd/137Cs 61 26 192Ir 59
Kakimoto16 2003 Tongue 2b 61 192Ir 69 14 192Ir 49
Inoue17 2001 Tongue 1b 26 192Ir 70 25 192Ir 60
Inoue18 1997 Floor of mouth 2b 41 198Au 72 16 192Ir 53
Open in a new tab

LOE: levels of evidence, Pts: patients.

Figure 2. Summary of findings table using GRADE methodology.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Local Recurrence

Five trials were suitable for inclusion to analyze of the local control rate, which included 276 patients in the LDR brachytherapy group and 114 patients in the HDR brachytherapy group. Heterogeneity across these trails was moderate (I2 = 48%), and fixed effect meta-analysis model was used. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between LDR brachytherapy group and HDR brachytherapy group (OR = 1.12, CI 95% 0.62–2.01), as Figure 3a.

Figure 3. Local recurrence of oral cancer treated with LDR vs. HDR brachytherapy (a. fixed effects model; b. random effects model).

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

The effect model was changed into random effect model to perform sensitivity analysis, and the difference in local recurrence between LDR group and HDR group was still not statistically significant. The result under the random effect model (figure 3b) was in accordance with that under the fixed effect model.

Overall Mortality

Overall survival (OS) was reported in five trials as one outcome indicators. 390 patients were involved to this meta-analysis. The result implied a slightly higher mortality for LDR brachytherapy (90/276 = 32.6%) versus HDR brachytherapy (32/114 = 28.1%). However, the odds ratio (OR = 1.01, CI 95% 0.61–1.66) showed no statistically significant difference between two groups. The fixed effect model was applied, as the heterogeneity was low (I2 = 4%). Of all the trials, the difference of overall mortality between LDR brachytherapy group and HDR brachytherapy group was not statistically significant, as figure 4.

Figure 4. Overall mortality of oral cancer treated with LDR vs.HDR brachytherapy.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Grade 3 and Grade 4 Complications

Five trials including 407 patients provided information on the Grade 3 and Grade 4 complications of oral mucosa after LDR/HDR brachytherapy. The odds ratio, expressed as LDR group versus HDR group, was 0.86 (CI 95% 0.52–1.42). There was a low heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 0%), and the fixed effect model was used, as figure 5.

Figure 5. Grade 3 or Grade 4 complications of oral cancer treated with LDR vs. HDR brachytherapy.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Discussion

It was estimated that 128,000 people worldwide died from oral cavity cancer (including lip cancer) in 2008 [1]. The mortality of oral cancer varies geographically, about 3–4 per 100,000 for men and 1.5–2.0 per 100,000 for women for most countries [2]. The five-year survival rate for cancers of the tongue and oral cavity is around 50% while over 90% for cancer of the lip [2]. Radiotherapy can be chosen as the sole treatment for T1-2N0 oral cancer according to the NCCN clinical practice guidelines for head and neck cancer (version 2, 2011) [20], avoiding potential severe masticatory, speech, and swallowing disturbances resulted from surgery. Radiotherapy for oral cancer consists of teletherapy and brachytherapy. Brachytherapy showed good efficacy over early cancers of the head and neck [21] and lower damage to normal surrounding tissues, and has become an important therapeutic alternative to conventional radiotherapy for oral cancer in Japan [22].

LDR and HDR are two main types of brachytherapy for oral cancer, and the former has come into widespread use and become the gold standard in brachytherapy [23]. Meanwhile, HDR brachytherapy has become more and more popular during the last 3 decades, owing to the development of remote after-loading technology at the aspect of high-intensity radioactive sources, treatment planning software, and sophisticated computerized remote after-loading devices [24]. HDR brachytherapy offers numerous advantages over LDR brachytherapy, including (i) accurate calculations made possible by complete fixation of the guide tubes, (ii) parallel source arrangement with sophisticated technique, (iii) homogeneous dose distribution due to stepping source optimization, (iv) better patient care in normal wards without medical staff radiation exposure, administration on an outpatient basis in several cases [22], and (v) no shifting of seeds within the tissues. However, it is still controversial whether HDR brachytherapy can replace LDR brachytherapy in treating oral cancer, in terms of efficacy and safety [14], [17], [25], [26].

The results of this meta-analysis show that HDR brachytherapy is an alternative to LDR brachytherapy in treating early-stage oral cancer. The local recurrence and overall mortality are similar in both groups for early-stage or local advanced oral cancer. (Figure 2, 3 and 4).

Brachytherapy is mainly applied as a sole treatment for early-stage oral cancer without regional metastasis, and demonstrates excellent cure rate [27]. Most studies that involved HDR brachytherapy suggested a similar or even better outcome in local control rate and overall survival when compared with LDR brachytherapy. However, some trials held the opposite view [28]. This divergence was probably caused by various technical factors, such as delineation of gross tumor volume (GTV), treatment planning software, remote after-loading devices, and quality of radioactive sources. These indicators suggest that HDR brachytherapy should be applied with perfect technical support and caution.

Sometimes, brachytherapy is applied to early-stage oral cancer treatment in combination with external beam radiotherapy, and presents satisfactory outcome. At the same time, HDR brachytherapy presents better performance than LDR brachytherapy. Inoue et al. [18] used interstitial radiotherapy ± EBRT for carcinoma of the floor of the mouth. The local control rates were 62% for LDR+EBRT group and 90% for HDR+EBRT group, while were 71% for LDR group and 94% for HDR group. Guinot et al. [29] reviewed data form 50 patients treated for oral tongue carcinoma with HDR-ISBT ± EBRT. Exclusive HDR cases showed LC in 100% of the cases, and the combined group (EBRT+HDR) showed LC in 80%. These studies suggested that HDR brachytherapy can be an alternative to EBRT for early-stage oral cancer.

The most common complication is mucosal mucositis or/and necrosis during or/and after brachytherapy, and bone necrosis can be observed in some cases. Our results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between LDR group and HDR group in complications. Similar Grade 3 and Grade 4 complications were presented in both groups. (Figure 5) However, in theory, the rate of complications might rise up along with the increase of dose rate. The results indicated that the HDR brachytherapy fractionation schedule was balanced out by the continuous LDR brachytherapy.

Many attempts have been carried out to seek the optimal HDR brachytherapy protocol [30]–[32]. So far, the protocols vary greatly among different institutes. In this meta-analysis, HDR brachytherapy protocols showed a range of 30–60 Gy/6–13 Fr/5–7 d [13]–[16], [18], and were practiced upon previous experience.

Generally, a reasonable HDR brachytherapy schedule is mainly composed of the following parts: (i) patient selection, (ii) pre-treatment preparation, (iii) treatment strategy, (iv) treatment execution, and (v) post-treatment care and follow-up. At the same time, competent imaging plays a crucial role in the treatment strategy, especially in treatment planning system and remote after-loading system. A better imaging can improve the localization of tumor and distribution of brachytherapy dose [33]. Three dimensional (3D) imaging, such as CT and/or MRI, has been widely used in brachytherapy for uterine cervical cancer [34], [35]. More efforts should be directed toward treating oral cancer with 3D imaging in the future.

Meanwhile, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution, as the pooled data suffered risk of bias in four areas: selective reporting, location of studies, incomplete outcome and blinding of outcome assessment.

Conclusions

To sum up, we performed this meta-analysis of HDR versus LDR brachytherapy for oral cancer in terms of local recurrence, overall survival, and complications in data pooled from one RCT and five controlled trials. The results showed HDR brachytherapy was a competent alternative to LDR brachytherapy for early-stage oral cancer. More clinical trials are needed to explore the optimal HDR brachytherapy protocol.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the contributors of trails who agreed to share their data. We also thank Professor Zhang DS for his invaluable help in the preparation and editing of this meta-analysis.

Funding Statement

This study is supported by Shandong Provincial Science and Technology Development Plan (2006GG2202034), the Science and Technology Foundation of Shandong Province (2006GG20002046) and Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (ZR2012HQ022). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, et al. (2011) Global Cancer Statistics. CA cancer J Clin 61: 69–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Warnakulasuriya S (2009) Global epidemiology of oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol 45(4–5): 309–316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Deng H, Sambrook PJ, Logan RM (2011) The treatment of oral cancer: an overview for dental professionals. Aust Dent J 56(3): 244–252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Mazeron JJ, Ardiet JM, Haie-Méder C, Kovács G, Levendag P, et al. (2009) GEC-ESTRO recommendations for brachytherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Radiother Oncol 91: 150–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Erickson BA, Demanes DJ, Ibbott GS, Hayes JK, Hsu IC, et al. (2011) American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guideline for the performance of high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79: 641–649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, et al. (2009) The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000100 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414): 557–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4): 719–748. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 327(7414): 557–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Higgins J, Churchill R, Cumpston M, Chandler J (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook. Accessed 2013 Jan 5.
  • 12.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al. (2012) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp Accessed 2013 Jan 5.
  • 13. Ghadjar P, Bojaxhiu B, Simcock M, Terribilini D, Isaak B, et al. (2011) Treatment of lip cancer using high dose-rate or low dose-rate brachytherapy. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 83(4): 1205–1212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Ayerra AQ, Mena EP, Fabregas JP, Miguelez CG, Guedea F (2010) HDR and LDR brachytherapy in the treatment of lip cancer: The experience of the Catalan institute of oncology. J Contemp Brachyther 2(1): 9–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Umeda M, Komatsubara H, Ojima Y, Minamikawa T, Shibuya Y, et al. (2005) A comparison of brachytherapy and surgery for the treatment of stage I-II squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(7): 739–744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Kakimoto N, Inoue T, Inoue T, Murakami S, Furukawa S, et al. (2003) Results of low- and high -dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for T3 mobile tongue cancer. Radiother Oncol 68(2): 123–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Inoue T, Inoue T, Yoshida K, Yoshioka Y, Shimamoto S, et al. (2001) Phase III trial of high- vs. low-dose-rate interstitial radiotherapy for early mobile tongue cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51(1): 171–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Inoue T, Inoue T, Yamazaki H, Koizumi M, Kagawa K, et al. (1998) High dose rate versus low dose rate interstitial radiotherapy for carcinoma of the floor of mouth. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41(1): 53–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Howick J, Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, et al. (2009) Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Available: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 2013 Jan 5.
  • 20.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2011) NCCN guidelines for Head and Neck cancers. Available: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp Accessed 2013 Jan 5.
  • 21. Shibuya H (2009) Current status and perspectives of brachytherapy for head and neck cancer.Int J Clin Oncol. 14(1): 2–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Yamazaki H, Yoshida K, Yoshioka Y, Shimizutani K, Furukawa S, et al. (2013) High dose rate brachytherapy for oral cancer. J Radiat Res 54(1): 1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Yamazaki H, Inoue T, Yoshida K, Yoshioka Y, Furukawa S, et al. (2007) Comparison of three major radioactive sources for brachytherapy used in the treatment of node negative T1–T3 oral tongue cancer: influence of age on outcome. Anticancer Res 27(1B): 491–497. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martinez A, Stitt JA, Speiser BL (1997) Clinical applications of brachytherapy II. In: Perez CA, Brady LW, editors. Principles and practice of radiation oncology 3rd edition. Lippincott-Raven.pp.569–580.
  • 25. Umeda M, Komatsubara H, Nishimatsu N, Yokoo S, Shibuya Y, et al. (2000) High-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy for stage I-II tongue cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 90(5): 667–670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Petera J, Matula P, Paluska P, Sirak I, Macingova Z, et al. (2009) High dose rate versus low dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of tongue carcinoma - A radiobiological study. Neoplasma 56(2): 163–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Genden EM, Ferlito A, Silver CE, Takes RP, Suárez C, et al. (2010) Contemporary management of cancer of the oral cavity. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267(7): 1001–1017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Lau HY, Hay JH, Flores AD, Threlfall WJ (1996) Seven fractions of twice daily high dose-rate brachytherapy for node-negative carcinoma of the mobile tongue results in loss of therapeutic ratio. Radiother Oncol 39(1): 15–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Guinot JL, Santos M, Tortajada MI, Carrascosa M, Estellés E, et al. (2010) Efficacy of high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in patients with oral tongue carcinoma. Brachytherapy 9(3): 227–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Leung TW, Wong VY, Wong CM, Tung SY, Lui CM, et al. (1997) High dose rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the oral tongue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39(5): 1113–1120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Leung TW, Wong VY, Kwan KH, Ng TY, Wong CM, et al. (2002) High dose rate brachytherapy for early stage oral tongue cancer. Head Neck 24(3): 274–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Akiyama H, Yoshida K, Shimizutani K, Yamazaki H, Koizumi M, et al. (2012) Dose reduction trial from 60 Gy in 10 fractions to 54 Gy in 9 fractions schedule in high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for early oral tongue cancer. J Radiat Res 53(5): 722–726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Nag S (2004) High dose rate brachytherapy: its clinical applications and treatment guidelines. Technol Cancer Res Treat 3(3): 269–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Yoshida K, Yamazaki H, Takenaka T, Kotsuma T, Yoshida M, et al. (2010) A dose-volume analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-aided high-dose-rate image-based interstitial brachytherapy for uterine cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77(3): 765–772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Mikami M, Yoshida K, Takenaka T, Yamazaki H, Kotsuma T, et al. (2011) Daily computed tomography measurement of needle applicator displacement during high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for previously untreated uterine cervical cancer. Brachytherapy 10(4): 318–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES