PURPOSE: This study quantifies pulmonary radiation toxicity in patients who received proton therapy for esophagus cancer. MATERIALS/ METHODS: We retrospectively studied 100 esophagus cancer patients treated with proton therapy. The linearity of the enhanced FDG uptake vs. proton dose was evaluated using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Pneumonitis symptoms (RP) were assessed using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAEv4). The interaction of the imaging response with dosimetric parameters and symptoms was evaluated. RESULTS: The RP scores were: 0 grade 4/5, 7 grade 3, 20 grade 2, 37 grade 1, and 36 grade 0. Each dosimetric parameter was significantly higher for the symptomatic group. The AIC winning models were 30 linear, 52 linear quadratic, and 18 linear logarithmic. There was no significant difference in the linear coefficient between models. The slope of the FDG vs. proton dose response was 0.022 for the symptomatic and 0.012 for the asymptomatic (p=0.014). Combining dosimetric parameters with the slope did not improve the sensitivity or accuracy in identifying symptomatic cases. CONCLUSIONS: The proton radiation dose response on FDG PET/CT imaging exhibited a predominantly linear dose response on modeling. Symptomatic patients had a higher dose response slope.
PURPOSE: This study quantifies pulmonary radiation toxicity in patients who received proton therapy for esophagus cancer. MATERIALS/ METHODS: We retrospectively studied 100 esophagus cancerpatients treated with proton therapy. The linearity of the enhanced FDG uptake vs. proton dose was evaluated using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Pneumonitis symptoms (RP) were assessed using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAEv4). The interaction of the imaging response with dosimetric parameters and symptoms was evaluated. RESULTS: The RP scores were: 0 grade 4/5, 7 grade 3, 20 grade 2, 37 grade 1, and 36 grade 0. Each dosimetric parameter was significantly higher for the symptomatic group. The AIC winning models were 30 linear, 52 linear quadratic, and 18 linear logarithmic. There was no significant difference in the linear coefficient between models. The slope of the FDG vs. proton dose response was 0.022 for the symptomatic and 0.012 for the asymptomatic (p=0.014). Combining dosimetric parameters with the slope did not improve the sensitivity or accuracy in identifying symptomatic cases. CONCLUSIONS: The proton radiation dose response on FDG PET/CT imaging exhibited a predominantly linear dose response on modeling. Symptomatic patients had a higher dose response slope.
Authors: Harald Paganetti; Hongyu Jiang; Judith A Adams; George T Chen; Eike Rietzel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: U Isacsson; B Lennernäs; E Grusell; B Jung; A Montelius; B Glimelius Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C M Roberts; E Foulcher; J J Zaunders; D H Bryant; J Freund; D Cairns; R Penny; G W Morgan; S N Breit Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1993-05-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joshua S Niedzielski; Jinzhong Yang; Zhongxing Liao; Daniel R Gomez; Francesco Stingo; Radhe Mohan; Mary K Martel; Tina M Briere; Laurence E Court Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Pegah Jahangiri; Kamyar Pournazari; Drew A Torigian; Thomas J Werner; Samuel Swisher-McClure; Charles B Simone; Abass Alavi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Samantha Warren; Mike Partridge; Alessandra Bolsi; Anthony J Lomax; Chris Hurt; Thomas Crosby; Maria A Hawkins Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Rui Li; Robert Perneczky; Igor Yakushev; Stefan Förster; Alexander Kurz; Alexander Drzezga; Stefan Kramer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 3.240