Prospective trial evaluates personalized HDR brachytherapy effectiveness for basal cell carcinoma in older patients, indicating promising outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is frequent in older adults, many of whom are poor surgical candidates, especially for curved, cosmetically sensitive facial sites. High-dose-rate (HDR) surface brachytherapy is effective, but standard flat applicators may fit poorly and increase dose heterogeneity. Patient-specific 3D-printed applicators could improve conformity, yet geriatric BCC data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility and 12-month outcomes of personalized 3D-printed HDR surface brachytherapy in geriatric patients with BCC. METHODS: In this prospective single-arm study, 15 patients aged ≥65 years with histologically confirmed BCC (predominantly facial) unsuitable for surgery received HDR surface brachytherapy using custom 3D-printed applicators. Treatment delivered 51 Gy in 17 fractions with CT-based planning. Repeat CT evaluated applicator fit/reproducibility and target coverage. Acute skin toxicity was graded by RTOG. At 12 months, response was assessed clinically and dermoscopically; cosmesis and quality of life (DLQI) were recorded. RESULTS: All patients completed treatment. Positioning was highly reproducible (mean setup error <1 mm) with >90% target dose coverage. At 12 months, all lesions achieved complete remission with no local recurrence on dermoscopy. Acute reactions were mostly mild (73% grade 1), with 13% grade 2 and 13% grade 3; no grade 4 toxicity or serious adverse events occurred. Cosmesis was favorable, and DLQI improved (mean 10.5 pre-treatment vs 2.9 at 1 year; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Personalized 3D-printed HDR surface brachytherapy appears feasible and well tolerated in this small, monocentric cohort of older patients with BCC, with favorable 1-year local control and quality-of-life improvement when surgery is contraindicated. However, the limited sample size and single-center design represent limitation, and the observed benefit should be regarded as suggestive rather than definitive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sobolewski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: