Eunsin Lee1, Jing Zeng1, Robert S Miyaoka2, Jatinder Saini3, Paul E Kinahan2, George A Sandison1, Tony Wong3, Hubert J Vesselle2, Ramesh Rengan1, Stephen R Bowen4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. 3. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, 1570 N 115th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98133, USA. 4. Departments of Radiation Oncology and Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient radiation therapy (RT) is planned without consideration of spatial heterogeneity in lung function or tumor response. We assessed the dosimetric and clinical feasibility of functional lung avoidance and response-adaptive escalation (FLARE) RT to reduce dose to [99m Tc]MAA-SPECT/CT perfused lung while redistributing an escalated boost dose within [18 F]FDG-PET/CT-defined biological target volumes (BTV). METHODS: Eight stage IIB-IIIB NSCLC patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and MAA-SPECT/CT treatment planning scans. Perfused lung objectives were derived from scatter/collimator/attenuation-corrected MAA-SPECT uptake relative to ITV-subtracted lung to maintain < 20 Gy mean lung dose (MLD). Prescriptions included 60 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) and concomitant boost of 74 Gy mean to biological target volumes (BTV = GTV + PET gradient segmentation) scaled to each BTV voxel by relative FDG-PET SUV. Dose-painting-by-numbers prescriptions were integrated into commercial treatment planning systems via uptake threshold discretization. Dose constraints for lung, heart, cord, and esophagus were defined. FLARE RT plans were optimized with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) with 3%-3 mm robust optimization, and combination of PBS (avoidance) plus VMAT (escalation). The high boost dose region was evaluated within a standardized SUVpeak structure. FLARE RT plans were compared to reference VMAT plans. Linear regression between radiation dose to BTV and normalized FDG PET SUV at every voxel was conducted, from which Pearson linear correlation coefficients and regression slopes were extracted. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were estimated between radiation dose to lung and normalized SPECT uptake. Dosimetric differences between treatment modalities were evaluated by Friedman nonparametric paired test with multiple sampling correction. RESULTS: No unacceptable violations of PTV and normal tissue objectives were observed in 24 FLARE RT plans. Compared to reference VMAT plans, FLARE VMAT plans achieved a higher mean dose to BTV (73.7 Gy 98195. 61.3 Gy), higher mean dose to SUVpeak (89.7 Gy vs. 60.8 Gy), and lower mean dose to highly perfused lung (7.3 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy). These dosimetric gains came at the expense of higher mean heart dose (9.4 Gy vs. 5.8 Gy) and higher maximum cord dose (50.1 Gy vs. 44.6 Gy) relative to the reference VMAT plans. Between FLARE plans, FLARE VMAT achieved higher dose to the SUVpeak ROI than FLARE PBS (89.7 Gy vs. 79.2 Gy, P = 0.01), while FLARE PBS delivered lower dose to lung than FLARE VMAT (11.9 Gy vs. 15.6 Gy, P < 0.001). Voxelwise linear dose redistribution slope between BTV dose and FDG PET uptake was higher in magnitude for FLARE PBS + VMAT (0.36 Gy per %SUVmax ) compared to FLARE VMAT (0.27 Gy per %SUVmax ) or FLARE PBS alone (0.17 Gy per %SUVmax ). CONCLUSIONS: FLARE RT is clinically feasible with VMAT and PBS. A combination of PBS for functional lung avoidance and VMAT for FDG PET dose escalation balanced target and normal tissue objective tradeoffs. These results provide a technical platform for testing of FLARE RT safety and efficacy within a precision radiation oncology trial.
PURPOSE:Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient radiation therapy (RT) is planned without consideration of spatial heterogeneity in lung function or tumor response. We assessed the dosimetric and clinical feasibility of functional lung avoidance and response-adaptive escalation (FLARE) RT to reduce dose to [99m Tc]MAA-SPECT/CT perfused lung while redistributing an escalated boost dose within [18 F]FDG-PET/CT-defined biological target volumes (BTV). METHODS: Eight stage IIB-IIIB NSCLCpatients underwent FDG-PET/CT and MAA-SPECT/CT treatment planning scans. Perfused lung objectives were derived from scatter/collimator/attenuation-corrected MAA-SPECT uptake relative to ITV-subtracted lung to maintain < 20 Gy mean lung dose (MLD). Prescriptions included 60 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) and concomitant boost of 74 Gy mean to biological target volumes (BTV = GTV + PET gradient segmentation) scaled to each BTV voxel by relative FDG-PET SUV. Dose-painting-by-numbers prescriptions were integrated into commercial treatment planning systems via uptake threshold discretization. Dose constraints for lung, heart, cord, and esophagus were defined. FLARE RT plans were optimized with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) with 3%-3 mm robust optimization, and combination of PBS (avoidance) plus VMAT (escalation). The high boost dose region was evaluated within a standardized SUVpeak structure. FLARE RT plans were compared to reference VMAT plans. Linear regression between radiation dose to BTV and normalized FDG PET SUV at every voxel was conducted, from which Pearson linear correlation coefficients and regression slopes were extracted. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were estimated between radiation dose to lung and normalized SPECT uptake. Dosimetric differences between treatment modalities were evaluated by Friedman nonparametric paired test with multiple sampling correction. RESULTS: No unacceptable violations of PTV and normal tissue objectives were observed in 24 FLARE RT plans. Compared to reference VMAT plans, FLARE VMAT plans achieved a higher mean dose to BTV (73.7 Gy 98195. 61.3 Gy), higher mean dose to SUVpeak (89.7 Gy vs. 60.8 Gy), and lower mean dose to highly perfused lung (7.3 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy). These dosimetric gains came at the expense of higher mean heart dose (9.4 Gy vs. 5.8 Gy) and higher maximum cord dose (50.1 Gy vs. 44.6 Gy) relative to the reference VMAT plans. Between FLARE plans, FLARE VMAT achieved higher dose to the SUVpeak ROI than FLARE PBS (89.7 Gy vs. 79.2 Gy, P = 0.01), while FLARE PBS delivered lower dose to lung than FLARE VMAT (11.9 Gy vs. 15.6 Gy, P < 0.001). Voxelwise linear dose redistribution slope between BTV dose and FDG PET uptake was higher in magnitude for FLARE PBS + VMAT (0.36 Gy per %SUVmax ) compared to FLARE VMAT (0.27 Gy per %SUVmax ) or FLARE PBS alone (0.17 Gy per %SUVmax ). CONCLUSIONS: FLARE RT is clinically feasible with VMAT and PBS. A combination of PBS for functional lung avoidance and VMAT for FDG PET dose escalation balanced target and normal tissue objective tradeoffs. These results provide a technical platform for testing of FLARE RT safety and efficacy within a precision radiation oncology trial.
Authors: Stephen R Bowen; Jatinder Saini; Tobias R Chapman; Robert S Miyaoka; Paul E Kinahan; George A Sandison; Tony Wong; Hubert J Vesselle; Matthew J Nyflot; Smith Apisarnthanarax Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mike E Robbins; Judy K Brunso-Bechtold; Ann M Peiffer; Christina I Tsien; Janet E Bailey; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; Dirk De Ruysscher; Anke van der Salm; Annemarie Lakeman; Judith van der Stoep; Daisy Emans; Eugène Damen; Michel Öllers; Jan-Jakob Sonke; José Belderbos Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Sarah M McGuire; Sumin Zhou; Lawrence B Marks; Mark Dewhirst; Fang-Fang Yin; Shiva K Das Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J F Vansteenkiste; S G Stroobants; P R De Leyn; P J Dupont; J Bogaert; A Maes; G J Deneffe; K L Nackaerts; J A Verschakelen; T E Lerut; L A Mortelmans; M G Demedts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Junan Zhang; Jinli Ma; Sumin Zhou; Jessica L Hubbs; Terence Z Wong; Rodney J Folz; Elizabeth S Evans; Ronald J Jaszczak; Robert Clough; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yvette Seppenwoolde; Katrien De Jaeger; Liesbeth J Boersma; José S A Belderbos; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yuncheng Zhong; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Liyuan Chen; Nick Myziuk; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Thomas Guerrero; Steve Jiang; Jing Wang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Faegheh S Mounessi; Jörg Eckardt; Arne Holstein; Santiago Ewig; Stefan Könemann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Stephen R Bowen; Daniel S Hippe; W Art Chaovalitwongse; Chunyan Duan; Phawis Thammasorn; Xiao Liu; Robert S Miyaoka; Hubert J Vesselle; Paul E Kinahan; Ramesh Rengan; Jing Zeng Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Chunyan Duan; W Art Chaovalitwongse; Fangyun Bai; Daniel S Hippe; Shouyi Wang; Phawis Thammasorn; Larry A Pierce; Xiao Liu; Jianxin You; Robert S Miyaoka; Hubert J Vesselle; Paul E Kinahan; Ramesh Rengan; Jing Zeng; Stephen R Bowen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.609
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: Daniel Rocky Owen; Phillip S Boonstra; Benjamin L Viglianti; James M Balter; Matthew J Schipper; William C Jackson; Issam El Naqa; Shruti Jolly; Randall K Ten Haken; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Martha M Matuszak Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hannah Mary T Thomas; Jing Zeng; Howard J Lee; Balu Krishna Sasidharan; Paul E Kinahan; Robert S Miyaoka; Hubert J Vesselle; Ramesh Rengan; Stephen R Bowen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 3.039