PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that increased pelvic bone marrow (BM) irradiation is associated with increased hematologic toxicity (HT) in cervical cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy and to develop a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model for HT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We tested associations between hematologic nadirs during chemoradiotherapy and the volume of BM receiving≥10 and 20 Gy (V10 and V20) using a previously developed linear regression model. The validation cohort consisted of 44 cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and pelvic radiotherapy. Subsequently, these data were pooled with data from 37 identically treated patients from a previous study, forming a cohort of 81 patients for normal tissue complication probability analysis. Generalized linear modeling was used to test associations between hematologic nadirs and dosimetric parameters, adjusting for body mass index. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to derive optimal dosimetric planning constraints. RESULTS: In the validation cohort, significant negative correlations were observed between white blood cell count nadir and V10 (regression coefficient (β)=-0.060, p=0.009) and V20 (β=-0.044, p=0.010). In the combined cohort, the (adjusted) β estimates for log (white blood cell) vs. V10 and V20 were as follows: -0.022 (p=0.025) and -0.021 (p=0.002), respectively. Patients with V10≥95% were more likely to experience Grade≥3 leukopenia (68.8% vs. 24.6%, p<0.001) than were patients with V20>76% (57.7% vs. 21.8%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that HT increases with increasing pelvic BM volume irradiated. Efforts to maintain V10<95% and V20<76% may reduce HT.
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that increased pelvic bone marrow (BM) irradiation is associated with increased hematologic toxicity (HT) in cervical cancerpatients undergoing chemoradiotherapy and to develop a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model for HT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We tested associations between hematologic nadirs during chemoradiotherapy and the volume of BM receiving≥10 and 20 Gy (V10 and V20) using a previously developed linear regression model. The validation cohort consisted of 44 cervical cancerpatients treated with concurrent cisplatin and pelvic radiotherapy. Subsequently, these data were pooled with data from 37 identically treated patients from a previous study, forming a cohort of 81 patients for normal tissue complication probability analysis. Generalized linear modeling was used to test associations between hematologic nadirs and dosimetric parameters, adjusting for body mass index. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to derive optimal dosimetric planning constraints. RESULTS: In the validation cohort, significant negative correlations were observed between white blood cell count nadir and V10 (regression coefficient (β)=-0.060, p=0.009) and V20 (β=-0.044, p=0.010). In the combined cohort, the (adjusted) β estimates for log (white blood cell) vs. V10 and V20 were as follows: -0.022 (p=0.025) and -0.021 (p=0.002), respectively. Patients with V10≥95% were more likely to experience Grade≥3 leukopenia (68.8% vs. 24.6%, p<0.001) than were patients with V20>76% (57.7% vs. 21.8%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that HT increases with increasing pelvic BM volume irradiated. Efforts to maintain V10<95% and V20<76% may reduce HT.
Authors: R Pearcey; M Brundage; P Drouin; J Jeffrey; D Johnston; H Lukka; G MacLean; L Souhami; G Stuart; D Tu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Clark J Brixey; John C Roeske; Anthony E Lujan; S Diane Yamada; Jacob Rotmensch; Arno J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: W A Peters; P Y Liu; R J Barrett; R J Stock; B J Monk; J S Berek; L Souhami; P Grigsby; W Gordon; D S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David H Moore; John A Blessing; Richard P McQuellon; Howard T Thaler; David Cella; Jo Benda; David S Miller; George Olt; Stephanie King; John F Boggess; Thomas F Rocereto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patricia J Eifel; Kathryn Winter; Mitchell Morris; Charles Levenback; Perry W Grigsby; Jay Cooper; Marvin Rotman; David Gershenson; David G Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wang Jianyang; Tian Yuan; Tang Yuan; Wang Xin; Li Ning; Ren Hua; Fang Hui; Feng Yanru; Wang Shulian; Song Yongwen; Liu Yueping; Wang Weihu; Li Yexiong; Jin Jing Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Yun Liang; Karen Messer; Brent S Rose; John H Lewis; Steve B Jiang; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Neil B Newman; Rebecca A Moss; Nell Maloney-Patel; Kristen Donohue; Teresa V Brown; Michael J Nissenblatt; Shou-En Lu; Salma K Jabbour Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2017-06
Authors: Tahir Yusufaly; Austin Miller; Ana Medina-Palomo; Casey W Williamson; Hannah Nguyen; Jessica Lowenstein; Charles A Leath; Ying Xiao; Kevin L Moore; Katherine M Moxley; Carlos M Chevere-Mourino; Tony Y Eng; Tarrick Zaid; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nan Li; Ruben Carmona; Igor Sirak; Linda Kasaova; David Followill; Jeff Michalski; Walter Bosch; William Straube; Loren K Mell; Kevin L Moore Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Heinzelmann; G Henke; M von Grafenstein; N Weidner; F Paulsen; A Staebler; S Brucker; M Bamberg; M Weinmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ann H Klopp; Jennifer Moughan; Lorraine Portelance; Brigitte E Miller; Mohammad R Salehpour; Evangeline Hildebrandt; Jenny Nuanjing; David D'Souza; Luis Souhami; William Small; Rakesh Gaur; Anuja Jhingran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038