Aniek J G Even1, Judith van der Stoep2, Catharina M L Zegers2, Bart Reymen2, Esther G C Troost3, Philippe Lambin2, Wouter van Elmpt2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands. Electronic address: aniek.even@maastro.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands; Institute of Radiooncology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared two imaging biomarkers for dose-escalation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment plans boosting metabolically active sub-volumes defined by FDG-PET or hypoxic sub-volumes defined by HX4-PET were compared with boosting the entire tumour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten NSCLC patients underwent FDG- and HX4-PET/CT scans prior to radiotherapy. Three isotoxic dose-escalation plans were compared per patient: plan A, boosting the primary tumour (PTVprim); plan B, boosting sub-volume with FDG >50% SUVmax (PTVFDG); plan C, boosting hypoxic volume with HX4 tumour-to-background >1.4 (PTVHX4). RESULTS: Average boost volumes were 507 ± 466 cm(3) for PTVprim, 173 ± 127 cm(3) for PTVFDG and 114 ± 73 cm(3) for PTVHX4. The smaller PTVHX4 overlapped on average 87 ± 16% with PTVFDG. Prescribed dose was escalated to 87 ± 10 Gy for PTVprim, 107 ± 20 Gy for PTVFDG, and 117 ± 15 Gy for PTVHX4, with comparable doses to the relevant organs-at-risk (OAR). Treatment plans are available online (https://www.cancerdata.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.07.013). CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation based on metabolic sub-volumes, hypoxic sub-volumes and the entire tumour is feasible. Highest dose was achieved for hypoxia plans, without increasing dose to OAR. For most patients, boosting the metabolic sub-volume also resulted in boosting the hypoxic volume, although to a lower dose, but not vice versa.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared two imaging biomarkers for dose-escalation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment plans boosting metabolically active sub-volumes defined by FDG-PET or hypoxic sub-volumes defined by HX4-PET were compared with boosting the entire tumour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten NSCLCpatients underwent FDG- and HX4-PET/CT scans prior to radiotherapy. Three isotoxic dose-escalation plans were compared per patient: plan A, boosting the primary tumour (PTVprim); plan B, boosting sub-volume with FDG >50% SUVmax (PTVFDG); plan C, boosting hypoxic volume with HX4 tumour-to-background >1.4 (PTVHX4). RESULTS: Average boost volumes were 507 ± 466 cm(3) for PTVprim, 173 ± 127 cm(3) for PTVFDG and 114 ± 73 cm(3) for PTVHX4. The smaller PTVHX4 overlapped on average 87 ± 16% with PTVFDG. Prescribed dose was escalated to 87 ± 10 Gy for PTVprim, 107 ± 20 Gy for PTVFDG, and 117 ± 15 Gy for PTVHX4, with comparable doses to the relevant organs-at-risk (OAR). Treatment plans are available online (https://www.cancerdata.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.07.013). CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation based on metabolic sub-volumes, hypoxic sub-volumes and the entire tumour is feasible. Highest dose was achieved for hypoxia plans, without increasing dose to OAR. For most patients, boosting the metabolic sub-volume also resulted in boosting the hypoxic volume, although to a lower dose, but not vice versa.
Authors: Mihaela Ghita; Victoria Dunne; Gerard G Hanna; Kevin M Prise; Jaqueline P Williams; Karl T Butterworth Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ekaterina Mikhaylova; Jamison Brooks; Darren Zuro; Farouk Nouizi; Maciej Kujawski; Srideshikan Sargur Madabushi; Jinyi Qi; Mengxi Zhang; Junie Chea; Erasmus K Poku; Nicole Bowles; Jeffrey Y C Wong; John E Shively; Paul J Yazaki; Gultekin Gulsen; Simon R Cherry; Susanta Hui Journal: IEEE Access Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Michael MacManus; Sarah Everitt; Tanja Schimek-Jasch; X Allen Li; Ursula Nestle; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-12
Authors: Lotte Nygård; Marianne C Aznar; Barbara M Fischer; Gitte F Persson; Charlotte B Christensen; Flemming L Andersen; Mirjana Josipovic; Seppo W Langer; Andreas Kjær; Ivan R Vogelius; Søren M Bentzen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: Hannah Mary Thomas; Paul E Kinahan; James Jebaseelan E Samuel; Stephen R Bowen Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; Catharina M L Zegers; Bart Reymen; Aniek J G Even; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Michel Oellers; Joachim E Wildberger; Felix M Mottaghy; Marco Das; Esther G C Troost; Philippe Lambin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236