Marie Wanet1, Antoine Delor2, François-Xavier Hanin3, Benoît Ghaye4, Aline Van Maanen5, Vincent Remouchamps6, Christian Clermont6, Samuel Goossens7, John Aldo Lee7, Guillaume Janssens7, Anne Bol7, Xavier Geets7. 1. Center of Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate, 54 Bte B1.54.07, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. marie.wanet@cmsenamur.be. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiology, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Statistical Support Unit, Cancer Centre, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU UCL Namur, Clinique et Maternité Sainte Elisabeth Namur, 5000, Namur, Belgium. 7. Center of Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate, 54 Bte B1.54.07, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of an individualized 18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)-guided dose escalation boost in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and to assess its impact on local tumor control and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 13 patients with stage II-III NSCLC were enrolled to receive a dose of 62.5 Gy in 25 fractions to the CT-based planning target volume (PTV; primary turmor and affected lymph nodes). The fraction dose was increased within the individual PET-based PTV (PTVPET) using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) until the predefined organ-at-risk (OAR) threshold was reached. Tumor response was assessed during follow-up by means of repeat FDG-PET/computed tomography. Acute and late toxicity were recorded and classified according to the CTCAE criteria (Version 4.0). Local progression-free survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The average dose to PTVPET reached 89.17 Gy for peripheral and 75 Gy for central tumors. After a median follow-up period of 29 months, seven patients were still alive, while six had died (four due to distant progression, two due to grade 5 toxicity). Local progression was seen in two patients in association with further recurrences. One and 2-year local progression free survival rates were 76.9% and 52.8%, respectively. Three cases of acute grade 3 esophagitis were seen. Two patients with central tumors developed late toxicity and died due to severe hemoptysis. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a non-uniform and individualized dose escalation based on FDG-PET in IMRT delivery is feasible. The doses reached were higher in patients with peripheral compared to central tumors. This strategy enables good local control to be achieved at acceptable toxicity rates. However, dose escalation in centrally located tumors with direct invasion of mediastinal organs must be performed with great caution in order to avoid severe late toxicity.
AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of an individualized 18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)-guided dose escalation boost in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and to assess its impact on local tumor control and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 13 patients with stage II-III NSCLC were enrolled to receive a dose of 62.5 Gy in 25 fractions to the CT-based planning target volume (PTV; primary turmor and affected lymph nodes). The fraction dose was increased within the individual PET-based PTV (PTVPET) using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) until the predefined organ-at-risk (OAR) threshold was reached. Tumor response was assessed during follow-up by means of repeat FDG-PET/computed tomography. Acute and late toxicity were recorded and classified according to the CTCAE criteria (Version 4.0). Local progression-free survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The average dose to PTVPET reached 89.17 Gy for peripheral and 75 Gy for central tumors. After a median follow-up period of 29 months, seven patients were still alive, while six had died (four due to distant progression, two due to grade 5 toxicity). Local progression was seen in two patients in association with further recurrences. One and 2-year local progression free survival rates were 76.9% and 52.8%, respectively. Three cases of acute grade 3 esophagitis were seen. Two patients with central tumors developed late toxicity and died due to severe hemoptysis. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a non-uniform and individualized dose escalation based on FDG-PET in IMRT delivery is feasible. The doses reached were higher in patients with peripheral compared to central tumors. This strategy enables good local control to be achieved at acceptable toxicity rates. However, dose escalation in centrally located tumors with direct invasion of mediastinal organs must be performed with great caution in order to avoid severe late toxicity.
Authors: Bahman Emami; Nena Mirkovic; Charles Scott; Roger Byhardt; Mary V Graham; E James Andras; Madhu John; Arnold Herskovic; Raul Urtasun; Sucha O Asbell; Carlos A Perez; James Cox Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.705
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: Mitchell Machtay; Chuanchieh Hsu; Ritsuko Komaki; William T Sause; R Suzanne Swann; Corey J Langer; Roger W Byhardt; Walter J Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-05-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gerben R Borst; José S A Belderbos; Ronald Boellaard; Emile F I Comans; Katrien De Jaeger; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Kate Haslett; Neil Bayman; Kevin Franks; Nicki Groom; Susan V Harden; Catherine Harris; Gerard Hanna; Stephen Harrow; Matthew Hatton; Paula McCloskey; Fiona McDonald; W David Ryder; Corinne Faivre-Finn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 7.038