Takeaki Ishihara1,2, Kazunari Yamada3, Aya Harada4, Kenta Isogai3, Yoshihiro Tonosaki3, Yusuke Demizu5, Daisuke Miyawaki6, Kenji Yoshida6, Yasuo Ejima6, Ryohei Sasaki6. 1. Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Hyogo, Japan. spz694w9@onyx.ocn.ne.jp. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan. spz694w9@onyx.ocn.ne.jp. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Minimum Invasive Cancer Medical Center, Hyogo, Japan. 5. Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Hyogo, Japan. 6. Division of Radiation Oncology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Hyogo, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for brain metastases (BMs) from lung cancer, and to explore prognostic factors associated with local control (LC) and indication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated patients who were treated with linac-based HSRT for BMs from lung cancer. Lesions treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the same patients during the same periods were analysed and compared with HSRT in terms of LC or toxicity. There were 53 patients with 214 lesions selected for this analysis (HSRT: 76 lesions, SRS: 138 lesions). For HSRT, the median prescribed dose was 35 Gy in 5 fractions. RESULTS: The 1‑year LC rate was 83.6 % in HSRT; on multivariate analysis, a planning target volume (PTV) of <4 cm(3), biologically effective dose (BED10) of ≥51 Gy, and adenocarcinoma were significantly associated with better LC. Moreover, in PTVs ≥ 4 cm(3), there was a significant difference in LC between BED10 < 51 Gy and ≥ 51 Gy (p = 0.024). On the other hand, in PTVs < 4 cm(3), both HSRT and SRS had good LC with no significant difference (p = 0.195). Radiation necrosis emerged in 5 of 76 lesions (6.6 %) treated with HSRT and 21 of 138 (15.2 %) lesions treated with SRS (p = 0.064). CONCLUSION: Linac-based HSRT was safe and effective for BMs from lung cancer, and hence might be particularly useful in or near an eloquent area. PTV, BED10, and pathological type were significant prognostic factors. Furthermore, in BMs ≥ 4 cm(3), a dose of BED ≥ 51 Gy should be considered.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for brain metastases (BMs) from lung cancer, and to explore prognostic factors associated with local control (LC) and indication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated patients who were treated with linac-based HSRT for BMs from lung cancer. Lesions treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the same patients during the same periods were analysed and compared with HSRT in terms of LC or toxicity. There were 53 patients with 214 lesions selected for this analysis (HSRT: 76 lesions, SRS: 138 lesions). For HSRT, the median prescribed dose was 35 Gy in 5 fractions. RESULTS: The 1‑year LC rate was 83.6 % in HSRT; on multivariate analysis, a planning target volume (PTV) of <4 cm(3), biologically effective dose (BED10) of ≥51 Gy, and adenocarcinoma were significantly associated with better LC. Moreover, in PTVs ≥ 4 cm(3), there was a significant difference in LC between BED10 < 51 Gy and ≥ 51 Gy (p = 0.024). On the other hand, in PTVs < 4 cm(3), both HSRT and SRS had good LC with no significant difference (p = 0.195). Radiation necrosis emerged in 5 of 76 lesions (6.6 %) treated with HSRT and 21 of 138 (15.2 %) lesions treated with SRS (p = 0.064). CONCLUSION: Linac-based HSRT was safe and effective for BMs from lung cancer, and hence might be particularly useful in or near an eloquent area. PTV, BED10, and pathological type were significant prognostic factors. Furthermore, in BMs ≥ 4 cm(3), a dose of BED ≥ 51 Gy should be considered.
Authors: Kamran A Ahmed; Siriporn Sarangkasiri; Prakash Chinnaiyan; Solmaz Sahebjam; Hsiang-Hsuan Michael Yu; Arnold B Etame; Nikhil G Rao Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: E Shaw; C Scott; L Souhami; R Dinapoli; R Kline; J Loeffler; N Farnan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martin Kocher; Andrea Wittig; Marc Dieter Piroth; Harald Treuer; Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Maximilian Ruge; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Alexander K Kwon; Steven J Dibiase; Brian Wang; Samuel L Hughes; Barry Milcarek; Yunping Zhu Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jonathan W Lischalk; Eric Oermann; Sean P Collins; Mani N Nair; Vikram V Nayar; Richa Bhasin; Jean-Marc Voyadzis; Sonali Rudra; Keith Unger; Brian T Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Ahmad Walid Ayas; Stefan Grau; Karolina Jablonska; Daniel Ruess; Maximilian Ruge; Simone Marnitz; Roland Goldbrunner; Martin Kocher Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Aryavarta M S Kumar; Jonathan Miller; Seth A Hoffer; David B Mansur; Michael Coffey; Simon S Lo; Andrew E Sloan; Mitchell Machtay Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Michael T Milano; Jimm Grimm; Andrzej Niemierko; Scott G Soltys; Vitali Moiseenko; Kristin J Redmond; Ellen Yorke; Arjun Sahgal; Jinyu Xue; Anand Mahadevan; Alexander Muacevic; Lawrence B Marks; Lawrence R Kleinberg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 8.013