Stefan Münch1, Sylvia Aichmeier1, Alexander Hapfelmeier2, Marciana-Nona Duma1, Markus Oechsner1, Marcus Feith3, Stephanie E Combs1,4, Daniel Habermehl5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany. 2. Institute of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology (IMSE), Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany. 3. Department of Visceral Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany. 4. Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Oberschleißheim, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany. daniel.habermehl@tum.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) achieves high conformity to the planned target volume (PTV) and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). This study compares dosimetric parameters and toxicity in esophageal cancer (EC) patients treated with VMAT and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2014, 17 SC patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) with VMAT. Dose-volume histograms and toxicity were compared between these patients and 20 treated with 3D-CRT. All patients were irradiated with a total dose of 45 Gy. All VMAT patients received simultaneous chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5‑fluorouracil (5-FU) in treatment weeks 1 and 5. Of 20 patients treated with 3D-CRT, 13 (65 %) also received CRT with cisplatin and 5‑FU, whereas 6 patients (30 %) received CRT with weekly oxaliplatin and cetuximab, and a continuous infusion of 5‑FU (OE-7). RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the treatment groups. For the lungs, VMAT was associated with a higher V5 (median 90.1 % vs. 79.7 %; p = 0.013) and V10 (68.2 % vs. 56.6 %; p = 0.014), but with a lower V30 (median 6.6 % vs. 11.0 %; p = 0.030). Regarding heart parameters, VMAT was associated with a higher V5 (median 100.0 % vs. 91.0 %; p = 0.043), V10 (92.0 % vs. 79.2 %; p = 0.047), and Dmax (47.5 Gy vs. 46.3 Gy; p = 0.003), but with a lower median dose (18.7 Gy vs. 30.0 Gy; p = 0.026) and V30 (17.7 % vs. 50.4 %; p = 0.015). Complete resection was achieved in 16 VMAT and 19 3D-CRT patients. Due to systemic progression, 2 patients did not undergo surgery. The most frequent postoperative complication was anastomosis insufficiency, occurring in 1 VMAT (6.7 %) and 5 3D-CRT patients (27.8 %; p = 0.180). Postoperative pneumonia was seen in 2 patients of each group (p = 1.000). There was no significant difference in 3‑year overall (65 % VMAT vs. 45 % 3D-CRT; p = 0.493) or 3‑year progression-free survival (53 % VMAT vs. 35 % 3D-CRT; p = 0.453). CONCLUSION: Although dosimetric differences in lung and heart exposure were observed, no clinically relevant impact was detected in either patient group. In a real-life patient cohort, VMAT enables reduction of lung and heart V30 compared to 3D-CRT, which may contribute to reduced toxicity.
PURPOSE: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) achieves high conformity to the planned target volume (PTV) and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). This study compares dosimetric parameters and toxicity in esophageal cancer (EC) patients treated with VMAT and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2014, 17 SC patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) with VMAT. Dose-volume histograms and toxicity were compared between these patients and 20 treated with 3D-CRT. All patients were irradiated with a total dose of 45 Gy. All VMAT patients received simultaneous chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5‑fluorouracil (5-FU) in treatment weeks 1 and 5. Of 20 patients treated with 3D-CRT, 13 (65 %) also received CRT with cisplatin and 5‑FU, whereas 6 patients (30 %) received CRT with weekly oxaliplatin and cetuximab, and a continuous infusion of 5‑FU (OE-7). RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the treatment groups. For the lungs, VMAT was associated with a higher V5 (median 90.1 % vs. 79.7 %; p = 0.013) and V10 (68.2 % vs. 56.6 %; p = 0.014), but with a lower V30 (median 6.6 % vs. 11.0 %; p = 0.030). Regarding heart parameters, VMAT was associated with a higher V5 (median 100.0 % vs. 91.0 %; p = 0.043), V10 (92.0 % vs. 79.2 %; p = 0.047), and Dmax (47.5 Gy vs. 46.3 Gy; p = 0.003), but with a lower median dose (18.7 Gy vs. 30.0 Gy; p = 0.026) and V30 (17.7 % vs. 50.4 %; p = 0.015). Complete resection was achieved in 16 VMAT and 19 3D-CRT patients. Due to systemic progression, 2 patients did not undergo surgery. The most frequent postoperative complication was anastomosis insufficiency, occurring in 1 VMAT (6.7 %) and 5 3D-CRT patients (27.8 %; p = 0.180). Postoperative pneumonia was seen in 2 patients of each group (p = 1.000). There was no significant difference in 3‑year overall (65 % VMAT vs. 45 % 3D-CRT; p = 0.493) or 3‑year progression-free survival (53 % VMAT vs. 35 % 3D-CRT; p = 0.453). CONCLUSION: Although dosimetric differences in lung and heart exposure were observed, no clinically relevant impact was detected in either patient group. In a real-life patient cohort, VMAT enables reduction of lung and heart V30 compared to 3D-CRT, which may contribute to reduced toxicity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy; Heart; Lungs; Organs at risk; Survival
Authors: Shu-lian Wang; Zhongxing Liao; Ara A Vaporciyan; Susan L Tucker; Helen Liu; Xiong Wei; Stephen Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Yuriko Minn; Annie Hsu; Trang La; Pamela Kunz; George A Fisher; James M Ford; Jeffrey A Norton; Brendan Visser; Karyn A Goodman; Albert C Koong; Daniel T Chang Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tejinder Kataria; H B Govardhan; Deepak Gupta; U Mohanraj; Shyam Singh Bisht; R Sambasivaselli; S Goyal; A Abhishek; A Srivatsava; L Pushpan; V Kumar; S Vikraman Journal: J Cancer Res Ther Date: 2014 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 1.805
Authors: Mikael Lund; Gabriella Alexandersson von Döbeln; Magnus Nilsson; Reidar Winter; Lars Lundell; Jon A Tsai; Sigridur Kalman Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Yaqin Zhao; Lu Chen; Shu Zhang; Qiang Wu; Xiaoqin Jiang; Hong Zhu; Jin Wang; Zhiping Li; Yong Xu; Ying Jie Zhang; Sen Bai; Feng Xu Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: E Jimenez-Jimenez; P Mateos; N Aymar; R Roncero; I Ortiz; M Gimenez; J Pardo; J Salinas; S Sabater Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Stefan Münch; Daniel Habermehl; Ayman Agha; Claus Belka; Stephanie E Combs; Renate Eckel; Helmut Friess; Alexander Gerbes; Natascha C Nüssler; Wolfgang Schepp; Roland M Schmid; Wolfgang Schmitt; Gabriele Schubert-Fritschle; Bernhard Weber; Jens Werner; Jutta Engel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Antonia Regnier; Jana Ulbrich; Stefan Münch; Markus Oechsner; Dirk Wilhelm; Stephanie E Combs; Daniel Habermehl Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 6.244