Jochen Fleckenstein1, Katharina Kremp2, Stephanie Kremp2, Jan Palm2, Christian Rübe2. 1. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Germany. jochen.fleckenstein@uks.eu. 2. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: The potential of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as opposed to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is analyzed for two different concepts of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-based target volume delineation in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC): involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT) vs. elective nodal irradiation (ENI). METHODS: Treatment planning was performed for 41 patients with LA-NSCLC, using four different planning approaches (3D-CRT-IF, 3D-CRT-ENI, IMRT-IF, IMRT-ENI). ENI included a boost irradiation after 50 Gy. For each plan, maximum dose escalation was calculated based on prespecified normal tissue constraints. The maximum prescription dose (PD), tumor control probability (TCP), conformal indices (CI), and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were analyzed. RESULTS: IMRT resulted in statistically significant higher prescription doses for both target volume concepts as compared with 3D-CRT (ENI: 68.4 vs. 60.9 Gy, p < 0.001; IF: 74.3 vs. 70.1 Gy, p < 0.03). With IMRT-IF, a PD of at least 66 Gy was achieved for 95 % of all plans. For IF as compared with ENI, there was a considerable theoretical increase in TCP (IMRT: 27.3 vs. 17.7 %, p < 0.00001; 3D-CRT: 20.2 vs. 9.9 %, p < 0.00001). The esophageal NTCP showed a particularly good sparing with IMRT vs. 3D-CRT (ENI: 12.3 vs. 30.9 % p < 0.0001; IF: 15.9 vs. 24.1 %; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The IMRT technique and IF target volume delineation allow a significant dose escalation and an increase in TCP. IMRT results in an improved sparing of OARs as compared with 3D-CRT at equivalent dose levels.
AIM: The potential of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as opposed to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is analyzed for two different concepts of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-based target volume delineation in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC): involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT) vs. elective nodal irradiation (ENI). METHODS: Treatment planning was performed for 41 patients with LA-NSCLC, using four different planning approaches (3D-CRT-IF, 3D-CRT-ENI, IMRT-IF, IMRT-ENI). ENI included a boost irradiation after 50 Gy. For each plan, maximum dose escalation was calculated based on prespecified normal tissue constraints. The maximum prescription dose (PD), tumor control probability (TCP), conformal indices (CI), and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were analyzed. RESULTS: IMRT resulted in statistically significant higher prescription doses for both target volume concepts as compared with 3D-CRT (ENI: 68.4 vs. 60.9 Gy, p < 0.001; IF: 74.3 vs. 70.1 Gy, p < 0.03). With IMRT-IF, a PD of at least 66 Gy was achieved for 95 % of all plans. For IF as compared with ENI, there was a considerable theoretical increase in TCP (IMRT: 27.3 vs. 17.7 %, p < 0.00001; 3D-CRT: 20.2 vs. 9.9 %, p < 0.00001). The esophageal NTCP showed a particularly good sparing with IMRT vs. 3D-CRT (ENI: 12.3 vs. 30.9 % p < 0.0001; IF: 15.9 vs. 24.1 %; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The IMRT technique and IF target volume delineation allow a significant dose escalation and an increase in TCP. IMRT results in an improved sparing of OARs as compared with 3D-CRT at equivalent dose levels.
Authors: Maria Werner-Wasik; Ellen Yorke; Joseph Deasy; Jiho Nam; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Olivier Chapet; Feng-Ming Kong; Leslie E Quint; Andrew C Chang; Randall K Ten Haken; Avraham Eisbruch; James A Hayman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexandra D Jensen; Marc W Münter; Helge G Bischoff; Renate Haselmann; Uwe Haberkorn; Peter E Huber; Michael Thomas; Jürgen Debus; Klaus K Herfarth Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeremy P Harris; James D Murphy; Alexandra L Hanlon; Quynh-Thu Le; Billy W Loo; Maximilian Diehn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephanie L A Govaert; Esther G C Troost; Olga C J Schuurbiers; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Ariën Termeer; Paul N Span; Johan Bussink Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Lukas Käsmann; Maximilian Niyazi; Oliver Blanck; Christian Baues; René Baumann; Sophie Dobiasch; Chukwuka Eze; Daniel Fleischmann; Tobias Gauer; Frank A Giordano; Yvonne Goy; Jan Hausmann; Christoph Henkenberens; David Kaul; Lisa Klook; David Krug; Matthias Mäurer; Cédric M Panje; Johannes Rosenbrock; Lisa Sautter; Daniela Schmitt; Christoph Süß; Alexander H Thieme; Maike Trommer-Nestler; Sonia Ziegler; Nadja Ebert; Daniel Medenwald; Christian Ostheimer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jochen Fleckenstein; Michael Jelden; Stephanie Kremp; Philippe Jagoda; Jonas Stroeder; Fadi Khreish; Samer Ezziddin; Arno Buecker; Christian Rübe; Guenther K Schneider Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240