M Niyazi1, M Söhn, S B Schwarz, P Lang, C Belka, U Ganswindt. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. maximilian.niyazi@med.uni-muenchen.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Most patients with malignant glioma ultimately fail locally or loco-regionally after the first treatment, with re-irradiation being a reasonable treatment option. However, only limited data are presently available allowing for a precise selection of patients suitable for re-treatment with regard to safety and efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the department database, 39 patients with a second course of radiation were identified. Doses to gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), and relevant organs at risk (OARs; brainstem, optic chiasm, optic nerves, brain) were retrospectively analyzed and correlated to outcome parameters. Relevant treatment parameters including D(max), D(min), D(mean), and volume (ml) were obtained. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) values were calculated for the tumor and OARs. To address the issue of radiation necrosis/leukoencephalopathy posttherapeutic MRI images were routinely examined every 3 months. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 147 days. The time interval between first and second irradiation was regularly greater than 6 months. Median EUDs to the OARs were 11.9 Gy (range 0.7-27.4 Gy) to the optic chiasm, 17.6 Gy (range 0.7-43.0 Gy) to the brainstem, 4.9/2.1 Gy (range 0.3-24.5 Gy) to the right/left optic nerve, and 29.4 Gy (range 25.2-32.5 Gy) to the brain. No correlation between treated volume and survival was observed. Cold spots and dose did not correlate with survival. Re-irradiated volumes were treated with on average lower doses if they were larger and vice versa. CONCLUSION: In general, re-irradiation is a safe and feasible re-treatment option. No relevant toxicity was observed after re-irradiation in our patient cohort during follow-up. In this regard, this analysis provides baseline data for the selection of putative patients. EUD values are derived and may serve as reference for further studies, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) protocols.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Most patients with malignant glioma ultimately fail locally or loco-regionally after the first treatment, with re-irradiation being a reasonable treatment option. However, only limited data are presently available allowing for a precise selection of patients suitable for re-treatment with regard to safety and efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the department database, 39 patients with a second course of radiation were identified. Doses to gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), and relevant organs at risk (OARs; brainstem, optic chiasm, optic nerves, brain) were retrospectively analyzed and correlated to outcome parameters. Relevant treatment parameters including D(max), D(min), D(mean), and volume (ml) were obtained. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) values were calculated for the tumor and OARs. To address the issue of radiation necrosis/leukoencephalopathy posttherapeutic MRI images were routinely examined every 3 months. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 147 days. The time interval between first and second irradiation was regularly greater than 6 months. Median EUDs to the OARs were 11.9 Gy (range 0.7-27.4 Gy) to the optic chiasm, 17.6 Gy (range 0.7-43.0 Gy) to the brainstem, 4.9/2.1 Gy (range 0.3-24.5 Gy) to the right/left optic nerve, and 29.4 Gy (range 25.2-32.5 Gy) to the brain. No correlation between treated volume and survival was observed. Cold spots and dose did not correlate with survival. Re-irradiated volumes were treated with on average lower doses if they were larger and vice versa. CONCLUSION: In general, re-irradiation is a safe and feasible re-treatment option. No relevant toxicity was observed after re-irradiation in our patient cohort during follow-up. In this regard, this analysis provides baseline data for the selection of putative patients. EUD values are derived and may serve as reference for further studies, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) protocols.
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Dirk Vordermark; Oliver Kölbl; Klemens Ruprecht; Giles H Vince; Klaus Bratengeier; Michael Flentje Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2005-05-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: J P Boström; M Seifert; S Greschus; N Schäfer; M Glas; G Lammering; U Herrlinger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Matthias Uhl; Thomas Welzel; Jan Oelmann; Gregor Habl; Henrik Hauswald; Alexandra Jensen; Malte Ellerbrock; Jürgen Debus; Klaus Herfarth Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: C H Holdsworth; D Corwin; R D Stewart; R Rockne; A D Trister; K R Swanson; M Phillips Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jan Hofmaier; Steffi Kantz; Matthias Söhn; Oliver S Dohm; Stefan Bächle; Markus Alber; Katia Parodi; Claus Belka; Maximilian Niyazi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 3.481