From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Brachytherapy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 18, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Medicine (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I am wondering, does anyone know whether the radioactive seeds used in Prostate Brachytherapy remain in-situ when the rods/catheters are removed after the three or so treatments? 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean with Interstitial HDR Prostate Brachy? They are removed - the source is attached to the end of the wire. I believe there is a seed implantation method of brachy too - my department doesn't perform that one so I don't know about that one (I'm a computer guy working in a radonc dept, so I only know what I pick up from the physicists :-) --Surturz 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeds remain in situ for prostate brachtherapy as they release a constant dose rate over time (several months) to the prostate. The half life of I-125 is around 2 months. Typically we implant maybe 100 tiny seeds per patient sometimes deep inside the prostate. They are around 4 mm long so retrieving them after they have done the job may be a little tricky! They will decay over time and present no external hazard outside the skin of the patient. HDR brachy therapy however uses much higher dose larger sources which are designed to give a dose of radiation over a much shorter time. Hope this helps. 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

With intercavity brachy (for cervical cancer) are the seeds removed does anyone know? putting them in has been discussed but i forgot to ask about having them removed / or do they degrade naturally?

As far as I know, for cervical cancer an applicator is used to guide wired seeds from the remote afterloader to the correct place. 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are two types of treatment offered for cervical cancer, both low-dose and high-dose. In low-dose brachy the "seed(s)" usually won't stay in play for more than 72 hours. It is usually supplemented with external beam therapy (in preparation) and requires a short hospital stay. Hope that answers your question. --Ronin

Jeffrey Musmacher[edit]

I removed the following "There is a device that was made widely acceptable by Jeffrey Musmacher in New York that uses this applicator to successfully treat skin cancers. He has published about 8 papers on this treatment modality." I did a google search for Jeffrey Musmacher and it looks like he is indeed an oncologist but we need a reference to go with this new material. -- Ronin

I added in a blurb about Jeffrey Musmacher after I found a few references to back it up. ----Ronin103 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


What is a "stat dose?" Sounds like jargon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


I am sometimes seeing the spelling "brachytheraphy." Is this a typo? Or is it legit? Or does it have some slightly different meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's a typo my friend.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brachytherapy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    ...However, the development of remote afterloading systems ... Please explain "afterloading systems". Yes check.svg Done
    Well written, follows the Mos sufficiently, no infobox necessary for articles about treatments.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    One citation needed tag (Dec 2009) in the Breast cancer section needs addressing. Yes check.svg Done
    'Source placement': It is probably in one of the many papers already cited but I think that some form of citation for this section would be desirable. Yes check.svg Done
    ''In cases where the tumour is not easily accessible or is too large to ensure an optimal distribution of irradiation to the treatment area, brachytherapy can be combined with other treatments, such as EBRT and/or surgery. Combination therapy of brachytherapy exclusively with chemotherapy is rare. Can we have a citation for this? Yes check.svg Done
    Procedure: the first free subsections are entirely uncited. Yes check.svg Done
    'Electronic brachytherapy' is uncited Yes check.svg Done
    All sources provided appear reliable, and those that I hve been able to access support the cited statements. I assume good faith for the others.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article is thorough and well developed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images tagged and suitably captioned.
  7. Overall:
    OK, one minor explnation needed, and some uncited passages. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    OK, thanks for sorting that out. I formatted some bare URL references. I am happy to list this as a Good Article. Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Glioblastoma multiforme and other brain tumors" section removal[edit]

I deleted this entire section:

Glioblastoma multiforme and other brain tumors

The following extracts from a Thursday, August 4, 2011 online news release are from Richmond, Virginia, from the News Office of Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University (Virginia Tech, whose main campus is in Blacksburg, Virginia). They concern research, using murine (mice) animal models, in brachytherapy done by Michael D. Shultz, John D. Wilson, Dr. Christine E. Fuller, Jianyuan Zhang, Harry C. Dorn, and Panos P. Fatouros at Virginia Tech and at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) toward the relief of certain malignant brain tumors, including glioblastoma multiforme, the deadliest form of brain cancer. The research is published in the August 2011 issue of the medical journal "Radiology", ahead of print August 3 (the title is "Metallofullerene-based Nanoplatform for Brain Tumor Brachytherapy and Longitudinal Imaging in a Murine Orthotopic Xenograft Model").

"A single compound with dual function- the ability to deliver a diagnostic and therapeutic agent-may one day be used to enhance the diagnosis, imaging, and treatment of brain tumors...tumor cells often extend beyond the well-defined tumor margins making it extremely difficult for clinicians and radiologists to visualize with current imaging techniques...the study...demonstrated that a nanoparticle containing an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) diagnostic agent can effectively be imaged within the brain tumor and provide radiation therapy in an animal model. Survival of the treated mice was 2.5 times longer than the untreated mice (52 days compared to 20.7 days). The nanoparticle filled with gadolinium, a sensitive MRI contrast agent for imaging, and coupled with radioactive lutetium 177 to deliver brachytherapy, is known as a theranostic agent- a single compound capable of delivering simultaneously effective treatment and imaging. The lutetium 177 is attached to the outside of the carbon cage of the nanoparticle. The researchers report three advances in knowledge..."

For the rest of the report, go to:


A copied and pasted press release does not belong in the list of clinical applications. Or as its own section anywhere, in fact. A write-up of brachytherapy brain cancer treatments could be a nice addition to the article, but an abridged abstract of a single paper does not a good section make. Kolbasz (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)