Radiobiological evaluation of simultaneously dose-escalated versus non-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients with upper thoracic esophageal cancer.
ABSTRACT: To compare the radiobiological response between simultaneously dose-escalated and non-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DE-IMRT and NE-IMRT) for patients with upper thoracic esophageal cancer (UTEC) using radiobiological evaluation.Computed tomography simulation data sets for 25 patients pathologically diagnosed with primary UTEC were used in this study. DE-IMRT plan with an escalated dose of 64.8 Gy/28 fractions to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and involved lymph nodes from 25 patients pathologically diagnosed with primary UTEC, was compared to an NE-IMRT plan of 50.4 Gy/28 fractions. Dose-volume metrics, tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability for the lung and spinal cord were compared. In addition, the risk of acute esophageal toxicity (AET) and late esophageal toxicity (LET) were also analyzed.Compared with NE-IMRT plan, we found the DE-IMRT plan resulted in a 14.6 Gy dose escalation to the GTV. The tumor control was predicted to increase by 31.8%, 39.1%, and 40.9% for three independent TCP models. The predicted incidence of radiation pneumonitis was similar (3.9% versus 3.6%), and the estimated risk of radiation-induced spinal cord injury was extremely low (<0.13%) in both groups. Regarding the esophageal toxicities, the estimated grade ≥2 and grade ≥3 AET predicted by the Kwint model were increased by 2.5% and 3.8%. Grade ≥2 AET predicted using the Wijsman model was increased by 14.9%. The predicted incidence of LET was low (<0.51%) in both groups.Radiobiological evaluation reveals that the DE-IMRT dosing strategy is feasible for patients with UTEC, with significant gains in tumor control and minor or clinically acceptable increases in radiation-induced toxicities.
Project description:We aim to evaluate whether different definitions of esophagus (DEs) impact on the esophageal toxicity prediction for esophageal cancer (EC) patients administered intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) vs. standard-dose IMRT (SD-IMRT). The esophagus for 21 patients diagnosed with primary EC were defined in the following four ways: the whole esophagus, including the tumor (ESOwhole); ESOwhole within the treatment field (ESOinfield); ESOinfield, excluding the tumor (ESOinfield-tumor) and ESOwhole, excluding the tumor (ESOwhole-tumor). The difference in the dose variation, acute esophageal toxicity (AET) and late esophageal toxicity (LET) of four DEs were compared. We found that the mean esophageal dose for ESOwhole, ESOinfield, ESOinfield-tumor and ESOwhole-tumor were increased by 7.2?Gy, 10.9?Gy, 4.6?Gy and 2.0?Gy, respectively, in the SIB-IMRT plans. Radiobiological models indicated that a grade???2 AET was 2.9%, 3.1%, 2.2% and 1.6% higher on average with the Kwint model and 14.6%, 13.2%, 7.2% and 3.4% higher with the Wijsman model for the four DEs. A grade???3 AET increased by 4.3%, 7.2%, 4.2% and 1.2%, respectively. Additionally, the predicted LET increased by 0.15%, 0.39%, 1.2?×?10-2% and 1.5?×?10-3%. Our study demonstrates that different DEs influence the esophageal toxicity prediction for EC patients administered SIB-IMRT vs. SD-IMRT treatment.
Project description:Local control rates in patients with retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma (RSTS) remain disappointing even after gross total resection, mainly because wide margins are not achievable in the majority of patients. In contrast to extremity sarcoma, postoperative radiation therapy (RT) has shown limited efficacy due to its limitations in achievable dose and coverage. Although Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT) has been introduced in some centers to overcome the dose limitations and resulted in increased outcome, local failure rates are still high even if considerable treatment related toxicity is accepted. As postoperative administration of RT has some general disadvantages, neoadjuvant approaches could offer benefits in terms of dose escalation, target coverage and reduction of toxicity, especially if highly conformal techniques like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are considered.The trial is a prospective, one armed, single center phase I/II study investigating a combination of neoadjuvant dose-escalated IMRT (50-56?Gy) followed by surgery and IORT (10-12?Gy) in patients with at least marginally resectable RSTS. The primary objective is the local control rate after five years. Secondary endpoints are progression-free and overall survival, acute and late toxicity, surgical resectability and patterns of failure. The aim of accrual is 37 patients in the per-protocol population.The present study evaluates combined neoadjuvant dose-escalated IMRT followed by surgery and IORT concerning its value for improved local control without markedly increased toxicity.NCT01566123.
Project description:PURPOSE:Hypofractionated radiotherapy delivers larger daily doses of radiation and may increase the biologically effective dose delivered to the prostate. We conducted a randomized trial testing the hypothesis that dose-escalated, moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) improves prostate cancer control compared with conventionally fractionated IMRT (CIMRT) for men with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Men were randomly assigned to 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions delivered over 8.4 weeks (CIMRT) or 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions delivered over 6 weeks (HIMRT, biologically equivalent to 85 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions assuming prostate cancer ?-to-? ratio of 1.5). Failure was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir plus 2 ng/mL) or initiation of salvage therapy. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria were used to grade late (? 90 days after completion of radiotherapy) GI and genitourinary toxicity. RESULTS:Most of the 206 men (72%) had cT1, Gleason score 6 or 7 (99%), and PSA level ? 10 ng/mL (90%) disease. Androgen deprivation therapy was received by 24%. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, men treated with HIMRT experienced fewer treatment failures (n = 10) than men treated with CIMRT (n = 21; P = .036). The 8-year failure rate was 10.7% (95% CI, 5.8% to 19.1%) with HIMRT and 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1% to 25.4%) with CIMRT. There was no difference in overall survival ( P = .39). There was a nonsignificant increase in late grade 2 or 3 GI toxicity with HIMRT (8-year 5.0% v 12.6%; P = .08). However, GI toxicity was only 8.6% when rectal volume receiving 65 Gy of HIMRT was ? 15%. Late genitourinary toxicity was similar ( P = .84). There was no grade 4 toxicity. CONCLUSION:The results of this randomized trial demonstrate superior cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer who receive dose-escalated moderately hypofractionation radiotherapy while shortening treatment duration.
Project description:BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety of focal dose escalation to regions with standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.0 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparison of radiotherapy plans using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer METHODS: First, we performed conventional radiotherapy with 40 Gy/20 fr. (CRT 40 Gy) for 12 patients with postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer, and then we performed FDG-PET/CT radiotherapy planning for those patients. We defined the regions with SUV > 2.0 as biological target volume (BTV) and made three boost plans for each patient: 1) CRT boost plan, 2) IMRT without dose-painting boost plan, and 3) IMRT with dose-painting boost plan. The total boost dose was 20 Gy. In IMRT with dose-painting boost plan, we increased the dose for BTV+5 mm by 30% of the prescribed dose. We added CRT boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 1), IMRT without dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 2) and IMRT with dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 3), and we compared those plans using DVHs and NTCP. RESULTS: D(mean) of PTV-PET and that of PTV-CT were 26.5 Gy and 21.3 Gy, respectively. V50 of small bowel PRV in summed plan 1 was significantly higher than those in other plans ((summed plan 1 vs. summed plan 2 vs. summed plan 3: 47.11 +/- 45.33 cm3 vs. 40.63 +/- 39.13 cm3 vs. 41.25 +/- 39.96 cm3 (p < 0.01, respectively)). There were no significant differences in V30, V40, V60, D(mean) or NTCP of small bowel PRV. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET-guided IMRT can facilitate focal dose-escalation to regions with SUV above 2.0 for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer.
Project description:To report toxicity and early survival data for IDEAL-CRT, a trial of dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer.Patients received tumor doses of 63 to 73 Gy in 30 once-daily fractions over 6 weeks with 2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. They were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to esophageal dose. In group 1, tumor doses were determined by an experimental constraint on maximum esophageal dose, which was escalated following a 6 + 6 design from 65 Gy through 68 Gy to 71 Gy, allowing an esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be determined from early and late toxicities. Tumor doses for group 2 patients were determined by other tissue constraints, often lung. Overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor response, and toxicity were evaluated for both groups combined.Eight centers recruited 84 patients: 13, 12, and 10, respectively, in the 65-Gy, 68-Gy, and 71-Gy cohorts of group 1; and 49 in group 2. The mean prescribed tumor dose was 67.7 Gy. Five grade 3 esophagitis and 3 grade 3 pneumonitis events were observed across both groups. After 1 fatal esophageal perforation in the 71-Gy cohort, 68 Gy was declared the esophageal maximum tolerated dose. With a median follow-up of 35 months, median overall survival was 36.9 months, and overall survival and progression-free survival were 87.8% and 72.0%, respectively, at 1 year and 68.0% and 48.5% at 2 years.IDEAL-CRT achieved significant treatment intensification with acceptable toxicity and promising survival. The isotoxic design allowed the esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be identified from relatively few patients.
Project description:To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system.Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1-5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min.MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.
Project description:Glioblastoma (GBM) has the highest fatality rate among primary malignant brain tumors and typically tends to recur locally just adjacent to the original tumor site following surgical resection and adjuvant radiotherapy. We conducted a study to evaluate the survival outcomes between a standard dose (? 60 Gy) and moderate radiation dose escalation (>60 Gy), and to identify prognostic factors for GBM. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of primary GBM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 in two referral hospitals in Taiwan. They were identified from the cancer registry database and followed up from the date of diagnosis to October 2018. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two dose groups, and independent factors for survival were analyzed through Cox proportional hazard model. We also affirmed the results using Cox regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach. From our cancer registry database, 142 GBM patients were identified, and 84 of them fit the inclusion criteria. Of the 84 patients, 52 (62%) were males. The radiation dose ranged from 50.0 Gy to 66.6 Gy, but their treatment volumes were similar to the others. Fifteen (18%) patients received an escalated dose boost >60.0 Gy. The escalated group had a longer median PFS (15.4 vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.01 for log-rank test), and a longer median OS was also longer in the escalation group (33.8 vs. 12.5 months, p <0.001) than the reference group. Following a multivariate analysis, the escalated dose was identified as a significant predictor for good prognosis (PFS: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.23-0.98; OS: HR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.21-0.78). Using the LASSO approach, we found age > 70 (HR = 1.55), diagnosis after 2010 (HR = 1.42), and a larger radiation volume (? 250ml; HR = 0.81) were predictors of PFS. The escalated dose (HR = 0.47) and a larger radiation volume (HR = 0.76) were identified as predictors for better OS. Following detailed statistical analysis, a moderate radiation dose escalation (> 60 Gy) was found as an independent factor affecting OS in GBM patients. In conclusion, a moderate radiation dose escalation (> 60 Gy) was an independent predictor for longer OS in GBM patients. However, prospective studies including more patients with more information, such as molecular markers and completeness of resection, are needed to confirm our findings.
Project description:Radiation therapy plays an essential role in the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer, but it inevitably leads to incidental and unnecessary dose to critical organs, including the lung, heart, and esophagus. Numerous radiation dose-volumetric parameters have been associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The purpose of the present study is to quantify differences in normal tissue radiation exposure with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT).Twenty-four consecutive patients with locally advanced lung cancer undergoing definitive IMRT were enrolled on a phase 1 protocol. For each patient, an optimized 3D-CRT plan was also designed. Plans were normalized in terms of planning target coverage with a standard dose of 60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions with a subset of patients also receiving elective nodal irradiation to a dose of 44 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. Normal tissue dosimetric comparisons were made for the lung, heart, and esophagus.IMRT decreased incidental dose to the lungs, heart, and esophagus. For lung, both V20 Gy (21.5% vs 26.5%, P < .01) and mean lung dose (11.9 Gy vs 14.9 Gy, P < .01) were improved with IMRT without a corresponding increase in V5 Gy (P = .76). For heart, there was improvement in V5 (28.9% vs 33.7%, P < .01) but no difference in V30 Gy (9.8% vs 15.9%. P = .10). For esophagus, all dosimetric endpoints were improved (V20 Gy, V45 Gy, V60 Gy, mean dose). For example, V60 was 6.5% with IMRT compared with 21% with 3D-CRT (P < .01).IMRT significantly decreased unnecessary dose to critical organs with equivalent coverage of planning target volumes. IMRT may therefore improve the tolerability of therapy.
Project description:To examine recent practice patterns, using a large national cancer registry, to understand the extent to which dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has been incorporated into routine clinical practice for men with prostate cancer.We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using the National Cancer Data Base, a nationwide oncology outcomes database in the United States. We identified 98,755 men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2006 and 2011 who received definitive EBRT and classified patients into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups. We defined dose-escalated EBRT as total prescribed dose of ?75.6 Gy. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the association of patient, clinical, and demographic characteristics with the use of dose-escalated EBRT.Overall, 81.6% of men received dose-escalated EBRT during the study period. The use of dose-escalated EBRT did not vary substantially by NCCN risk group. Use of dose-escalated EBRT increased from 70.7% of patients receiving treatment in 2006 to 89.8% of patients receiving treatment in 2011. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis and use of intensity modulated radiation therapy were significantly associated with receipt of dose-escalated EBRT.Our study results indicate that dose-escalated EBRT has been widely adopted by radiation oncologists treating prostate cancer in the United States. The proportion of patients receiving dose-escalated EBRT increased nearly 20% between 2006 and 2011. We observed high utilization rates of dose-escalated EBRT within all disease risk groups. Adoption of intensity modulated radiation therapy was strongly associated with use of dose-escalated treatment.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine whether dose painting with volumetric modulated arc therapy for high-grade gliomas using 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]fluoro-l-phenylalanine (18F-FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET) could achieve dose-escalated coverage of biological target volumes (BTVs) without increasing the dose to cranial organs at risk (OARs). METHODS:10 patients with high-grade gliomas underwent CT, MRI, and 18F-FDOPA PET/CT images for post-operative radiation therapy planning. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were retrospectively generated for each patient: a conventional plan with 60?Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume delineated on MRI and a dose-escalated plan with a maximum dose of 80?Gy in 30 fractions to BTVs. BTVs were created by thresholding 18F-FDOPA PET/CT uptake using a linear quadratic model that assumed tracer uptake was linearly related to tumour cell density. The maximum doses and equivalent uniform doses of OARs were compared. RESULTS:The median volume of the planning target volume receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose (V 95%) was 99.6% with and 99.5% without dose painting. The median V 95% was >99.2% for BTVs. The maximum doses and equivalent uniform doses to the OARs did not differ significantly between the conventional and dose-painted plans. CONCLUSION:Using commercially available treatment planning software, dose painting for high-grade gliomas was feasible with good BTV coverage and no significant change in the dose to OARs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:A novel treatment planning strategy was used to achieve dose painting for gliomas with BTVs obtained from 18F-FDOPA PET/CT using a radiobiological model.