OBJECTIVE: To compare patterns of acute and late radiological lung injury following either 3D conformal or image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiotherapy for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We included 148 patients from a prospective mono-institutional stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) series (time interval 2004-2014), treated with prescription BED10 Gy (at 80%) in the range 100-120 Gy. The first 95 patients (2004-2010) were planned with 3D-CRT, with a stereotactic body frame. The second cohort (2010-2014) included 53 patients, planned with volumetric IMRT on a smaller planning target volume generated from a patient's specific internal target volume, with a frameless approach through cone-beam CT guidance. Acute and late radiological modifications were scored based on modified Kimura's and Koenig's classifications, respectively. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 20.5 months. The incidence of acute radiological changes was superimposable between the groups: increased density was observed in 68.4 and 64.2% of patients for 3D-CRT and VMAT, respectively, and patchy ground glass opacity in 23.7 and 24.5%, respectively; diffuse ground glass opacity was 2.6 vs 9.4%, respectively, and patchy consolidation 2.6 vs 1.9%, respectively. Late changes occurred in approximately 60% of patients: modified conventional pattern was the most frequent modification (25 vs 32.6%, respectively); other patterns were less common (mass-like 19.6 vs 17.4%, and scar-like 13 vs 10.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results of the present study indicate that the pattern of radiological lung changes following SBRT for peripheral early stage non-small-cell lung cancer is not influenced by the different techniques used for planning and delivery. Advances in knowledge: This comparative observational study shows that smaller margins, image guidance and most importantly dose distribution do not change the pattern of radiological injury after lung SBRT; the same scoring system can be used, and expected incidence is similar.
OBJECTIVE: To compare patterns of acute and late radiological lung injury following either 3D conformal or image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy stereotactic radiotherapy for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We included 148 patients from a prospective mono-institutional stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) series (time interval 2004-2014), treated with prescription BED10 Gy (at 80%) in the range 100-120 Gy. The first 95 patients (2004-2010) were planned with 3D-CRT, with a stereotactic body frame. The second cohort (2010-2014) included 53 patients, planned with volumetric IMRT on a smaller planning target volume generated from a patient's specific internal target volume, with a frameless approach through cone-beam CT guidance. Acute and late radiological modifications were scored based on modified Kimura's and Koenig's classifications, respectively. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 20.5 months. The incidence of acute radiological changes was superimposable between the groups: increased density was observed in 68.4 and 64.2% of patients for 3D-CRT and VMAT, respectively, and patchy ground glass opacity in 23.7 and 24.5%, respectively; diffuse ground glass opacity was 2.6 vs 9.4%, respectively, and patchy consolidation 2.6 vs 1.9%, respectively. Late changes occurred in approximately 60% of patients: modified conventional pattern was the most frequent modification (25 vs 32.6%, respectively); other patterns were less common (mass-like 19.6 vs 17.4%, and scar-like 13 vs 10.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results of the present study indicate that the pattern of radiological lung changes following SBRT for peripheral early stage non-small-cell lung cancer is not influenced by the different techniques used for planning and delivery. Advances in knowledge: This comparative observational study shows that smaller margins, image guidance and most importantly dose distribution do not change the pattern of radiological injury after lung SBRT; the same scoring system can be used, and expected incidence is similar.
Authors: T R Mackie; J Balog; K Ruchala; D Shepard; S Aldridge; E Fitchard; P Reckwerdt; G Olivera; T McNutt; M Mehta Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David A Palma; Suresh Senan; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Wilko F A R Verbakel; Andrew Vincent; Frank Lagerwaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-06-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S Arcangeli; L Agolli; L Portalone; M R Migliorino; M G Lopergolo; A Monaco; J Dognini; M C Pressello; S Bracci; V Donato Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J Vansteenkiste; L Crinò; C Dooms; J Y Douillard; C Faivre-Finn; E Lim; G Rocco; S Senan; P Van Schil; G Veronesi; R Stahel; S Peters; E Felip Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Titus R Koenig; Reginald F Munden; Jeremy J Erasmus; Bradley S Sabloff; Gregory W Gladish; Ritsuko Komaki; Craig W Stevens Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mario Levis; Veronica Dusi; Massimo Magnano; Marzia Cerrato; Elena Gallio; Alessandro Depaoli; Federico Ferraris; Gaetano Maria De Ferrari; Umberto Ricardi; Matteo Anselmino Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Michael Mix; Sean Tanny; Tamara Nsouli; Ryan Alden; Rishabh Chaudhari; Russell Kincaid; Paula F Rosenbaum; Jeffrey A Bogart; Paul Aridgides Journal: Lung Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2019-12-20