PURPOSE: To test the feasibility of a planned phase 1 study of image-guided adaptive radiation therapy in locally advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Weekly 4-dimensional fan beam computed tomographs (4D FBCT) of 10 lung cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation therapy were used to simulate adaptive radiation therapy: After an initial intensity modulated radiation therapy plan (0-30 Gy/2 Gy), adaptive replanning was performed on week 2 (30-50 Gy/2 Gy) and week 4 scans (50-66 Gy/2 Gy) to adjust for volume and shape changes of primary tumors and lymph nodes. Week 2 and 4 clinical target volumes (CTV) were deformably warped from the initial planning scan to adjust for anatomical changes. On the week 4 scan, a simultaneous integrated volume-adapted boost was created to the shrunken primary tumor with dose increases in 5 0.4-Gy steps from 66 Gy to 82 Gy in 2 scenarios: plan A, lung isotoxicity; plan B, normal tissue tolerance. Cumulative dose was assessed by deformably mapping and accumulating biologically equivalent dose normalized to 2 Gy-fractions (EQD2). RESULTS: The 82-Gy level was achieved in 1 in 10 patients in scenario A, resulting in a 13.4-Gy EQD2 increase and a 22.1% increase in tumor control probability (TCP) compared to the 66-Gy plan. In scenario B, 2 patients reached the 82-Gy level with a 13.9 Gy EQD2 and 23.4% TCP increase. CONCLUSIONS: The tested image-guided adaptive radiation therapy strategy enabled relevant increases in EQD2 and TCP. Normal tissue was often dose limiting, indicating a need to modify the present study design before clinical implementation.
PURPOSE: To test the feasibility of a planned phase 1 study of image-guided adaptive radiation therapy in locally advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Weekly 4-dimensional fan beam computed tomographs (4D FBCT) of 10 lung cancerpatients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation therapy were used to simulate adaptive radiation therapy: After an initial intensity modulated radiation therapy plan (0-30 Gy/2 Gy), adaptive replanning was performed on week 2 (30-50 Gy/2 Gy) and week 4 scans (50-66 Gy/2 Gy) to adjust for volume and shape changes of primary tumors and lymph nodes. Week 2 and 4 clinical target volumes (CTV) were deformably warped from the initial planning scan to adjust for anatomical changes. On the week 4 scan, a simultaneous integrated volume-adapted boost was created to the shrunken primary tumor with dose increases in 5 0.4-Gy steps from 66 Gy to 82 Gy in 2 scenarios: plan A, lung isotoxicity; plan B, normal tissue tolerance. Cumulative dose was assessed by deformably mapping and accumulating biologically equivalent dose normalized to 2 Gy-fractions (EQD2). RESULTS: The 82-Gy level was achieved in 1 in 10 patients in scenario A, resulting in a 13.4-Gy EQD2 increase and a 22.1% increase in tumor control probability (TCP) compared to the 66-Gy plan. In scenario B, 2 patients reached the 82-Gy level with a 13.9 Gy EQD2 and 23.4% TCP increase. CONCLUSIONS: The tested image-guided adaptive radiation therapy strategy enabled relevant increases in EQD2 and TCP. Normal tissue was often dose limiting, indicating a need to modify the present study design before clinical implementation.
Authors: Lawrence B Marks; Soren M Bentzen; Joseph O Deasy; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Jeffrey D Bradley; Ivan S Vogelius; Issam El Naqa; Jessica L Hubbs; Joos V Lebesque; Robert D Timmerman; Mary K Martel; Andrew Jackson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Keith R Britton; George Starkschall; Helen Liu; Joe Y Chang; Stephen Bilton; Muthuveni Ezhil; Sandra John-Baptiste; Michael Kantor; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Femke O B Spoelstra; Jason R Pantarotto; John R van Sörnsen de Koste; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Angela van Baardwijk; Geert Bosmans; Søren M Bentzen; Liesbeth Boersma; André Dekker; Rinus Wanders; Bradly G Wouters; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Matthieu Bal; Karl Bzdusek; Paul J Keall; Cari Wright; Stanley H Benedict; Megan E Daly Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Geoffrey D Hugo; Elisabeth Weiss; William C Sleeman; Salim Balik; Paul J Keall; Jun Lu; Jeffrey F Williamson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 4.071