PURPOSE: To analyze dosimetric variables and outcomes after adaptive replanning of radiation therapy during concurrent high-dose protons and chemotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine of 44 patients with stage III NSCLC in a prospective phase II trial of concurrent paclitaxel/carboplatin with proton radiation [74 Gy(RBE) in 37 fractions] had modifications to their original treatment plans after re-evaluation revealed changes that would compromise coverage of the target volume or violate dose constraints; plans for the other 35 patients were not changed. We compared patients with adaptive plans with those with nonadaptive plans in terms of dosimetry and outcomes. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 21.2 months (median overall survival, 29.6 months), no differences were found in local, regional, or distant failure or overall survival between groups. Adaptive planning was used more often for large tumors that shrank to a greater extent (median, 107.1 cm(3) adaptive and 86.4 cm(3) nonadaptive; median changes in volume, 25.3% adaptive and 1.2% nonadaptive; P<.01). The median number of fractions delivered using adaptive planning was 13 (range, 4-22). Adaptive planning generally improved sparing of the esophagus (median absolute decrease in V(70), 1.8%; range, 0%-22.9%) and spinal cord (median absolute change in maximum dose, 3.7 Gy; range, 0-13.8 Gy). Without adaptive replanning, target coverage would have been compromised in 2 cases (57% and 82% coverage without adaptation vs 100% for both with adaptation); neither patient experienced local failure. Radiation-related grade 3 toxicity rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive planning can reduce normal tissue doses and prevent target misses, particularly for patients with large tumors that shrink substantially during therapy. Adaptive plans seem to have acceptable toxicity and achieve similar local, regional, and distant control and overall survival, even in patients with larger tumors, vs nonadaptive plans.
PURPOSE: To analyze dosimetric variables and outcomes after adaptive replanning of radiation therapy during concurrent high-dose protons and chemotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine of 44 patients with stage III NSCLC in a prospective phase II trial of concurrent paclitaxel/carboplatin with proton radiation [74 Gy(RBE) in 37 fractions] had modifications to their original treatment plans after re-evaluation revealed changes that would compromise coverage of the target volume or violate dose constraints; plans for the other 35 patients were not changed. We compared patients with adaptive plans with those with nonadaptive plans in terms of dosimetry and outcomes. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 21.2 months (median overall survival, 29.6 months), no differences were found in local, regional, or distant failure or overall survival between groups. Adaptive planning was used more often for large tumors that shrank to a greater extent (median, 107.1 cm(3) adaptive and 86.4 cm(3) nonadaptive; median changes in volume, 25.3% adaptive and 1.2% nonadaptive; P<.01). The median number of fractions delivered using adaptive planning was 13 (range, 4-22). Adaptive planning generally improved sparing of the esophagus (median absolute decrease in V(70), 1.8%; range, 0%-22.9%) and spinal cord (median absolute change in maximum dose, 3.7 Gy; range, 0-13.8 Gy). Without adaptive replanning, target coverage would have been compromised in 2 cases (57% and 82% coverage without adaptation vs 100% for both with adaptation); neither patient experienced local failure. Radiation-related grade 3 toxicity rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive planning can reduce normal tissue doses and prevent target misses, particularly for patients with large tumors that shrink substantially during therapy. Adaptive plans seem to have acceptable toxicity and achieve similar local, regional, and distant control and overall survival, even in patients with larger tumors, vs nonadaptive plans.
Authors: Jana Fox; Eric Ford; Kristin Redmond; Jessica Zhou; John Wong; Danny Y Song Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Geert Bosmans; Angela van Baardwijk; André Dekker; Michel Ollers; Liesbeth Boersma; André Minken; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Ritsuko Komaki; Hong Y Wen; Beth De Gracia; Jaques B Bluett; Mary F McAleer; Stephen G Swisher; Michael Gillin; Radhe Mohan; James D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Lei Dong; Helen Liu; George Starkschall; Peter Balter; Radhe Mohan; Zhongxing Liao; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Anne Kiil Berthelsen; Jane Dobbs; Elisabeth Kjellén; Torsten Landberg; Torgil R Möller; Per Nilsson; Lena Specht; André Wambersie Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Heng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Zhongxing Liao; Lina Zhao; Amy Liu; Yupeng Li; Narayan Sahoo; Falk Poenisch; Daniel R Gomez; Richard Wu; Michael Gillin; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Wencheng Zhang; Ritsuko Komaki; Noah C Choi; Shen Chan; Daniel Gomez; Michael O'Reilly; Melenda Jeter; Michael Gillin; Xiaorong Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang; Radhe Mohan; Stephen Swisher; Stephen Hahn; James D Cox Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-01-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Joey P Cheung; Peter C Park; Laurence E Court; X Ronald Zhu; Rajat J Kudchadker; Steven J Frank; Lei Dong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Steven E Schild; William G Rule; Jonathan B Ashman; Sujay A Vora; Sameer Keole; Aman Anand; Wei Liu; Martin Bues Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-10