PURPOSE: To evaluate the pattern of failure after limited margin radiotherapy for glioblastoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed 62 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated between 2006 and 2008 with standard fractionation to a total dose of 60 Gy with concurrent temozolomide (97%) or arsenic trioxide (3%). The initial clinical target volume included postoperative T2 abnormality with a median margin of 0.7 cm. The boost clinical target volume included residual T1-enhancing tumor and resection cavity with a median margin of 0.5 cm. Planning target volumes added a 0.3- or 0.5-cm margin to clinical target volumes. The total boost planning target volume (PTV(boost)) margin was 1cm or less in 92% of patients. The volume of recurrent tumor (new T1 enhancement) was categorized by the percent within the 60-Gy isodose line as central (>95%), infield (81-95%), marginal (20-80%), or distant (<20%). For comparison, an initial planning target volume with a 2-cm margin and PTV(boost) with a 2.5-cm margin were created for each patient. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 12 months, radiographic tumor progression developed in 43 of 62 patients. Imaging was available for analysis in 41: 38 (93%) had central or infield failure, 2 (5%) had marginal failure, and 1 (2%) had distant failure relative to the 60-Gy isodose line. The treated PTV(boost) (median, 140 cm(3)) was, on average, 70% less than the PTV(boost) with a 2.5-cm margin (median, 477 cm(3)) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A PTV(boost) margin of 1cm or less did not appear to increase the risk of marginal and/or distant tumor failures compared with other published series. With careful radiation planning and delivery, it appears that treatment margins for glioblastoma can be reduced.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the pattern of failure after limited margin radiotherapy for glioblastoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed 62 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated between 2006 and 2008 with standard fractionation to a total dose of 60 Gy with concurrent temozolomide (97%) or arsenic trioxide (3%). The initial clinical target volume included postoperative T2 abnormality with a median margin of 0.7 cm. The boost clinical target volume included residual T1-enhancing tumor and resection cavity with a median margin of 0.5 cm. Planning target volumes added a 0.3- or 0.5-cm margin to clinical target volumes. The total boost planning target volume (PTV(boost)) margin was 1cm or less in 92% of patients. The volume of recurrent tumor (new T1 enhancement) was categorized by the percent within the 60-Gy isodose line as central (>95%), infield (81-95%), marginal (20-80%), or distant (<20%). For comparison, an initial planning target volume with a 2-cm margin and PTV(boost) with a 2.5-cm margin were created for each patient. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 12 months, radiographic tumor progression developed in 43 of 62 patients. Imaging was available for analysis in 41: 38 (93%) had central or infield failure, 2 (5%) had marginal failure, and 1 (2%) had distant failure relative to the 60-Gy isodose line. The treated PTV(boost) (median, 140 cm(3)) was, on average, 70% less than the PTV(boost) with a 2.5-cm margin (median, 477 cm(3)) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A PTV(boost) margin of 1cm or less did not appear to increase the risk of marginal and/or distant tumor failures compared with other published series. With careful radiation planning and delivery, it appears that treatment margins for glioblastoma can be reduced.
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Andrew Elson; Eric Paulson; Joseph Bovi; Malika Siker; Chris Schultz; Peter S Laviolette Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Federico Pessina; Pierina Navarria; Luca Cozzi; Anna Maria Ascolese; Matteo Simonelli; Armando Santoro; Elena Clerici; Marco Rossi; Marta Scorsetti; Lorenzo Bello Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Tim J Kruser; Walter R Bosch; Shahed N Badiyan; Joseph A Bovi; Amol J Ghia; Michelle M Kim; Abhishek A Solanki; Sean Sachdev; Christina Tsien; Tony J C Wang; Minesh P Mehta; Kevin P McMullen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Soléakhéna Ken; Alexandra Deviers; Thomas Filleron; Isabelle Catalaa; Jean-Albert Lotterie; Jonathan Khalifa; Vincent Lubrano; Isabelle Berry; Patrice Péran; Pierre Celsis; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal; Anne Laprie Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-07-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Erwin G Van Meir; Costas G Hadjipanayis; Andrew D Norden; Hui-Kuo Shu; Patrick Y Wen; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: J Sherriff; J Tamangani; L Senthil; G Cruickshank; D Spooner; B Jones; C Brookes; P Sanghera Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.039