PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), compared with conventional 4-field treatment, can reduce the volume of bone marrow irradiated. Pelvic bone marrow sparing has produced a clinically significant reduction in hematologic toxicity (HT). This analysis investigated HT in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0418, a prospective study to test the feasibility of delivering postoperative IMRT for cervical and endometrial cancer in a multiinstitutional setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients in the RTOG 0418 study were treated with postoperative IMRT to 50.4 Gy to the pelvic lymphatics and vagina. Endometrial cancer patients received IMRT alone, whereas patients with cervical cancer received IMRT and weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m(2)). Pelvic bone marrow was defined within the treatment field by using a computed tomography density-based autocontouring algorithm. The volume of bone marrow receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy and the median dose to bone marrow were correlated with HT, graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, criteria. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were eligible for analysis (43 with endometrial cancer and 40 with cervical cancer). Patients with cervical cancer treated with weekly cisplatin and pelvic IMRT had grades 1-5 HT (23%, 33%, 25%, 0%, and 0% of patients, respectively). Among patients with cervical cancer, 83% received 5 or more cycles of cisplatin, and 90% received at least 4 cycles of cisplatin. The median percentage volume of bone marrow receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy in all 83 patients, respectively, was 96%, 84%, 61%, and 37%. Among cervical cancer patients with a V40 >37%, 75% had grade 2 or higher HT compared with 40% of patients with a V40 less than or equal to 37% (P =.025). Cervical cancer patients with a median bone marrow dose of >34.2 Gy also had higher rates of grade ≥ 2 HT than did those with a dose of ≤ 34.2 Gy (74% vs 43%, P=.049). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic IMRT with weekly cisplatin is associated with low rates of HT and high rates of weekly cisplatin use. The volume of bone marrow receiving 40 Gy and the median dose to bone marrow correlated with higher rates of grade ≥ 2 toxicity among patients receiving weekly cisplatin (cervical cancer patients). Evaluation and limitation of the volume of bone marrow treated with pelvic IMRT is warranted in patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy.
PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), compared with conventional 4-field treatment, can reduce the volume of bone marrow irradiated. Pelvic bone marrow sparing has produced a clinically significant reduction in hematologic toxicity (HT). This analysis investigated HT in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0418, a prospective study to test the feasibility of delivering postoperative IMRT for cervical and endometrial cancer in a multiinstitutional setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients in the RTOG 0418 study were treated with postoperative IMRT to 50.4 Gy to the pelvic lymphatics and vagina. Endometrial cancerpatients received IMRT alone, whereas patients with cervical cancer received IMRT and weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m(2)). Pelvic bone marrow was defined within the treatment field by using a computed tomography density-based autocontouring algorithm. The volume of bone marrow receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy and the median dose to bone marrow were correlated with HT, graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, criteria. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were eligible for analysis (43 with endometrial cancer and 40 with cervical cancer). Patients with cervical cancer treated with weekly cisplatin and pelvic IMRT had grades 1-5 HT (23%, 33%, 25%, 0%, and 0% of patients, respectively). Among patients with cervical cancer, 83% received 5 or more cycles of cisplatin, and 90% received at least 4 cycles of cisplatin. The median percentage volume of bone marrow receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy in all 83 patients, respectively, was 96%, 84%, 61%, and 37%. Among cervical cancerpatients with a V40 >37%, 75% had grade 2 or higher HT compared with 40% of patients with a V40 less than or equal to 37% (P =.025). Cervical cancerpatients with a median bone marrow dose of >34.2 Gy also had higher rates of grade ≥ 2 HT than did those with a dose of ≤ 34.2 Gy (74% vs 43%, P=.049). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic IMRT with weekly cisplatin is associated with low rates of HT and high rates of weekly cisplatin use. The volume of bone marrow receiving 40 Gy and the median dose to bone marrow correlated with higher rates of grade ≥ 2 toxicity among patients receiving weekly cisplatin (cervical cancerpatients). Evaluation and limitation of the volume of bone marrow treated with pelvic IMRT is warranted in patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy.
Authors: Karen Lim; William Small; Lorraine Portelance; Carien Creutzberg; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Arno Mundt; Loren K Mell; Nina Mayr; Akila Viswanathan; Anuja Jhingran; Beth Erickson; Jennifer De los Santos; David Gaffney; Catheryn Yashar; Sushil Beriwal; Aaron Wolfson; Alexandra Taylor; Walter Bosch; Issam El Naqa; Anthony Fyles Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kevin Albuquerque; David Giangreco; Courtney Morrison; Mohammed Siddiqui; Jim Sinacore; Ronald Potkul; John Roeske Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xu Cao; Xiangwei Wu; Deborah Frassica; Bing Yu; Lijuan Pang; Lingling Xian; Mei Wan; Weiqi Lei; Michael Armour; Erik Tryggestad; John Wong; Chun Yi Wen; William Weijia Lu; Frank J Frassica Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: R Pearcey; M Brundage; P Drouin; J Jeffrey; D Johnston; H Lukka; G MacLean; L Souhami; G Stuart; D Tu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alfonso Dueñas-González; Juan J Zarbá; Firuza Patel; Juan C Alcedo; Semir Beslija; Luis Casanova; Pittayapoom Pattaranutaporn; Shahid Hameed; Julie M Blair; Helen Barraclough; Mauro Orlando Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brent S Rose; Bulent Aydogan; Yun Liang; Mete Yeginer; Michael D Hasselle; Virag Dandekar; Rounak Bafana; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; John C Roeske; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: W A Peters; P Y Liu; R J Barrett; R J Stock; B J Monk; J S Berek; L Souhami; P Grigsby; W Gordon; D S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn Greven; Kathryn Winter; Kelly Underhill; Jim Fontenesci; Jay Cooper; Tom Burke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tahir Yusufaly; Austin Miller; Ana Medina-Palomo; Casey W Williamson; Hannah Nguyen; Jessica Lowenstein; Charles A Leath; Ying Xiao; Kevin L Moore; Katherine M Moxley; Carlos M Chevere-Mourino; Tony Y Eng; Tarrick Zaid; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Louis Bazire; Haoping Xu; Jean-Philippe Foy; Malika Amessis; Caroline Malhaire; Kim Cao; Anne De La Rochefordiere; Youlia M Kirova Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: David K Gaffney; Anuja Jhingran; Lorraine Portelance; Akila Viswanathan; Tracey Schefter; Joanne Weidhaas; William Small Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Alexander J Lin; Elizabeth Kidd; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Sasa Mutic; Premal H Thaker; Leslie S Massad; Matthew A Powell; David G Mutch; Stephanie Markovina; Julie Schwarz; Perry W Grigsby Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ruben Carmona; Jakub Pritz; Mark Bydder; Sachin Gulaya; He Zhu; Casey W Williamson; Christian S Welch; Florin Vaida; Graeme Bydder; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 7.038