Back to Annual Meeting Posters
Safety and Efficacy of Brachytherapy Delivered via Mesh Implantation for Deep Cavity Sarcomas
*Mark Fairweather, *Jiping Wang, *Phillip M Devlin, *Jorgen Hansen, *Elizabeth H Baldini, *John Ready, *David J Sugarbaker, Monica M Bertagnolli, Chandrajit P Raut Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Objective: To investigate the safety and efficacy of permanent brachytherapy (BRT) delivered via implantation of 125I seeds embedded in mesh (mesh BRT) following resection of deep cavity soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Design: Retrospective case series, median follow-up of 26 months Setting: Tertiary academic medical center Patients: Forty-seven patients with STS involving the abdomen, chest or trunk treated with surgery and mesh BRT from 2000 to 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Interventions: All patients underwent resection followed by implantation of permanent 125I seeds (0.25 to 0.60 Ci, half-life 60 d) in a mesh carrier. 125I seeds contained within polygactin suture were threaded into absorbable polygactin woven mesh which was then sutured to the tumor bed. Main Outcome Measures: Local recurrence rates within the tumor bed covered by mesh (“in field” recurrences) were identified. Associated post-operative complications were graded based on severity. Results: “In-field” local recurrences were observed in 5 patients (11%). Post-operative complications were observed in 22 (47%) patients. Eleven (23%) patients developed grade III/IV complications resulting in percutaneous intervention in 6 patients and re-operation in 5 patients (Table 1). No patients required excision of the implanted mesh. There were no post-operative deaths. Conclusions: Implantation of 125I mesh BRT following surgery for deep cavity STS results in very low local recurrence rates, comparable to those for more traditional catheter BRT for extremity STS. However, this benefit should be weighed against the potential morbidity of the complications requiring intervention in nearly a quarter of the patients. | | TABLE 1. List of complications and management in 22/47 (47%) patients (n = 30) | Complication (grade) | n | Seroma | | No intervention (I) | 2 | Drainage in clinic (I) | 1 | Percutaneous drainage (III) | 2 | DVT/PE | | Systemic anticoagulation (II) | 5 | Abscess | | No intervention (II) | 1 | Operative intervention (III) | 2 | Percutaneous drainage (III) | 1 | Ileus/bowel obstruction | | No intervention (I) | 2 | Operative intervention (III) | 2 | Ascites | | No intervention (I) | 1 | Percutaneous drainage (III) | 2 | Hematoma | | No intervention (II) | 1 | Operative intervention (III) | 1 | Enterocutaneous fistula | | Total parental nutrition (II) | 1 | Operative intervention (III) | 1 | Wound infection | | Antibiotic treatment (II) | 1 | Limb amputation (IV) | 1 | Pancreatic leak | | Percutaneous drainage (III) | 1 | Axillary artery pseudoaneurysm | | Endovascular stenting (III) | 1 | Pleural effusion | | No intervention (I) | 1 | DVT indicates deep venous thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolus |
Back to Annual Meeting Posters
|
|