M Guckenberger1, A Kavanagh, M Partridge. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 11, 97080 Würzburg, Germany. guckenberger_m@klinik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of the current study was to investigate the tumor control probability (TCP) of advanced radiotherapy technologies for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to evaluate potential interplay effects between their applications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventionally fractionated doses of 66 Gy served as reference for 13 patients with stage III NSCLC. Isotoxic dose escalation relative to the corresponding 3D-CRT plans was performed for three technologies and their combinations: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), IMRT with a simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) of 10% to the gross tumor volume (GTV), and adaptive re-planning twice during the treatment course (ART). All analyses were based on accumulated dose distributions using deformable image registration of CT images, which were acquired weekly during the treatment course. RESULTS: IMRT reduced the mean lung dose (MLD) by 5.6% ± 3.8% compared to 3D-CRT. ART resulted in lung sparing of 7.9% ± 4.8% and 9.2% ± 3.9% in 3D-CRT and IMRT planning, respectively. IMRT and ART escalated the irradiation dose by 6.6% ± 3.2% and 8.8% ± 6.3%, respectively, which was not statistically different. For the 7 patients with the largest GTVs, IMRT-SIB was superior to IMRT and ART with dose escalation of 11.9% ± 3.7%. The combination of ART, IMRT, and SIB achieved maximum dose escalation in all 13 patients by 17.1% ± 5.4% on average, which increased TCP from 19.9% ± 7.0 to 37.1% ± 10.1%. Adaptive re-planning was required to continuously conform the escalated and hypofractionated SIB doses to the shrinking tumor. CONCLUSION: Combining advanced radiotherapy technologies is considered as a safe and effective strategy to maximize local tumor control probability in stage III NSCLC.
BACKGROUND: The goal of the current study was to investigate the tumor control probability (TCP) of advanced radiotherapy technologies for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to evaluate potential interplay effects between their applications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventionally fractionated doses of 66 Gy served as reference for 13 patients with stage III NSCLC. Isotoxic dose escalation relative to the corresponding 3D-CRT plans was performed for three technologies and their combinations: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), IMRT with a simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) of 10% to the gross tumor volume (GTV), and adaptive re-planning twice during the treatment course (ART). All analyses were based on accumulated dose distributions using deformable image registration of CT images, which were acquired weekly during the treatment course. RESULTS: IMRT reduced the mean lung dose (MLD) by 5.6% ± 3.8% compared to 3D-CRT. ART resulted in lung sparing of 7.9% ± 4.8% and 9.2% ± 3.9% in 3D-CRT and IMRT planning, respectively. IMRT and ART escalated the irradiation dose by 6.6% ± 3.2% and 8.8% ± 6.3%, respectively, which was not statistically different. For the 7 patients with the largest GTVs, IMRT-SIB was superior to IMRT and ART with dose escalation of 11.9% ± 3.7%. The combination of ART, IMRT, and SIB achieved maximum dose escalation in all 13 patients by 17.1% ± 5.4% on average, which increased TCP from 19.9% ± 7.0 to 37.1% ± 10.1%. Adaptive re-planning was required to continuously conform the escalated and hypofractionated SIB doses to the shrinking tumor. CONCLUSION: Combining advanced radiotherapy technologies is considered as a safe and effective strategy to maximize local tumor control probability in stage III NSCLC.
Authors: Olivier Chapet; Emma Thomas; Marc L Kessler; Benedick A Fraass; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Helen Liu; Xiaochun Wang; Lei Dong; Qiuwen Wu; Zhongxing Liao; Craig W Stevens; Thomas M Guerrero; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Matthias Guckenberger; Thomas Krieger; Anne Richter; Kurt Baier; Juergen Wilbert; Reinhart A Sweeney; Michael Flentje Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-10-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mary Feng; Feng-Ming Kong; Milton Gross; Shaneli Fernando; James A Hayman; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Bütof; K Kirchner; S Appold; S Löck; A Rolle; G Höffken; M Krause; M Baumann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 3.621